Capitalism Is Jewish Usury

(Left: William III of Orange, who made the migration of Jewish Capitalism from Amsterdam to Britain possible.)

Capitalism is Usury. Its defining belief is ‘return on investment’. This is an extension of the ‘time value’ of money, which is the central tenet of modern economics. Capitalism is unthinkable without banking and banking is institutionalized Usury.

Usury is Plutocracy. Compound interest makes it unavoidable that the very richest own everything in generations.

And this is indeed what happened: Capitalism is one huge global monopoly. All the major banks own each other and most Transnationals plus a huge chunk of land. This juggernaut was built with the plunder of Usury.

We have all seen that Rothschild was worth 50 billion in 1850. At 5% per year, this fortune would now be a trillion, at 8% per year Rothschild would now be worth hundreds of trillions.

This is why it has been said that ‘compound interest is the strongest force in the Universe’.

This is Usurious Usurpation.

The Rise of Capitalism
Modern Capitalism was first clearly visible in the Dutch Republic, where Italian Banking, expelled Iberian Jews, the Reformation, naval power and the acquisition of huge trade fortunes came together in the Amsterdam Empire, which would outshine its much bigger Spanish, British and even French competitors until the mid seventeenth century.

Everything that defines modern Capitalism was either invented or came to fruition in Amsterdam. The first Stock Exchange, Multinationals (the East Indies Company, which would rule over Indonesia with unrestrained Corporatocracy for centuries), and most importantly, a Central Bank, the ‘Amsterdamsche Wisselbank’. And of course a huge pile of money, that would be the envy of Europe even long after its ‘glory’ had subsided.

Up to 2500 guilders (estates could be bought for that kind of money) were paid for a single Viceroy Tulip bulb at the peak . “A Satire of Tulip Mania’ depicts speculators as brainless monkeys.

Amsterdam also saw the first bubble: the Tulip mania, 1637. This typical banker device, blowing bubbles with easy credit and then popping them by calling in loans, would haunt Western economies for centuries to come.

The Dutch Republic resulted from a Calvinist rebellion against Catholic Spain. Calvin is considered by many to have been Jewish. He openly defended Usury. This was in an era that the Medieval era of Usury prohibition was in terminal decline.

Calvinist thought was also infected by the typically Jewish notion that wealth is a sign of God’s favor.

Notwithstanding Usury prohibition, Jewish Usury had been a huge issue throughout the Middle Ages and it does not require a great leap of the imagination to see that Capitalism is in fact the modern equivalent of what was once known as Jewish Usury.

Jewish fortunes and their methods played a large part in Amsterdam. Their ships would also dominate the growing slave trade on America. They had come from Spain, after being expelled in 1492. Holland was known at the time for its ‘tolerance’.

Amsterdam was the first great star of high finance. Opulence acquired through trade became Capital, looking for returns. And here we see that Capitalism is about finance, not production or consumption. Finance rules over producers, workers, consumers, farmers, crafstmen and industrialists alike.

They lend to those they control or want to control and withhold credit to those for whom they have no purpose. Usury gives them their take of any venture. By keeping money scarce, they keep labor cheap. This is how money rules.

Moving on to BritainAmsterdam peaked in 1648, when the peace of Westphalia ended both the 80 year war for independence with Spain and the 30 year war in Germany. But after the peak comes the decline and already in the fifties problems began to mount when Cromwell landed a blow on Dutch naval supremacy with the Acts of Navigation.

The Jews had been expelled from Britain in 1290. This was a few decades after the Magna Carta, which clearly points at Jewish Usury as a huge problem at the time.

Cromwell, who was a calvinist Puritan, negotiated extensively with Amsterdam Jews about resettlement. He probably was a tool of Jewish/Amsterdam finance to begin with.

Resettlement came with the promise of making London a better Amsterdam. And while British merchants (and many others too) were against the readmittance of the Jews, Cromwell went ahead anyway. The Puritans were optimistic and naive and thought they could ‘redeem’ the Jews. But while Jewish Capital indeed pushed Britain’s Empire to unprecedented heights, there was no redemption: by the end of the 19th century the British Aristocracy had been entirely Judaized.

While Cromwell, as a tool of Amsterdam Imperialism, ultimately failed, the Jews did not relent and they had a second shot at London with the Glorious Revolution, when William III of Orange, Stadtholder of Holland, became William III of Britain and the Dutch Republic and England were united in a personal union.

He repaid his financial backers by chartering the Bank of England in 1694 and this was the official entry of Capitalism in Britain. It came with the end of sovereign money and the ascent of Gold: until then the British economy had been financed with Talley Sticks, simple pieces of wood issued by the King. British partners in the Bank paid for their shares with them, but the first thing the Bank did was take them out of circulation. The Bank of England is only the eigth bank in history and is the second oldest to survive today.

The United States
The real history of the United States is not about the War of Independence and the Constitution. It’s about banking.

The United States did not revolt over ‘taxes without representation’. According to Benjamin Franklin the real reason for the War of Independence was that Whitehall forced scarce money through Britain’s Gold Standard on the Colonies, who had thrived with their own Colonial Scrip. A depression was the inevitable result.

Only a few years after nominal independence, Hamilton’s first Bank of the United States brought Capitalism to the United States. It was closed in 1800, but in 1816, in the aftermath of the war with Britain, a second Bank of the United States (a privately owned corporation) was opened with a 20 year charter.

The heroic President Andrew Jackson did not renew this charter and miraculously survived an attempt on his life. His last words, ‘I killed the Bank’ still ring triumphantly through the ages. Unfortunately, he failed to replace it with a decent monetary system and the country was plunged in a depression because of a tanking money supply.

In 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank was founded. This privately owned corporation is owned by primarily Jewish ‘member banks’. The presidents of the Federal Reserve are always Jewish and by far most of its board members are too. It’s no secret Wall Street is run by the Jews and is now the global standard bearer of Jewish Usury with derivatives being the scam du jour.

Of course there are Americans in Wall Street too, just as there are Englishmen in the City or Germans in Deutsche Bank, but whereas these nationalities compete amongst each other, the Jews are strong in all nations and this gives them supremacy.

Equally true is that the Jewish many gain nothing from the banking prowess of their ‘elites’. They may have some privileges, but on the other hand they’re also easily duped into nasty affairs or sacrificed like the pawns we all are.

But considering the above history of Capitalism and Jewish Usury, it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that they are the same thing.

Conclusion
YHVH emphatically orders the Jews several times to conquer the world with Usury in Deutoronomy, for instance: “15:6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.”

Pivotal documents from the medieval era squarely point at Jewish Usury. We have already mentioned the Magna Carta, but there is also for instance the Quran: ‘That they (the Jews) took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men’s substance wrongfully;- we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment.’ (sura 4.161)

Capitalism and its ‘return on investment’ is clearly the successor of medieval Jewish Usury. It arose during the destruction of medieval Usury prohibition. Its typical devices, Usury, Banking, the Stock Exchange, asset bubbles, Transnationals, all were already present in Amsterdam. It was this force that migrated to Britain and the US. It was in these three financial Empires that Captitalism showed its unrestrained imperialist designs.

Already the poor lose up to 50% of their income to Usury, mostly passed on by producers in prices. The middle classes are somewhat better off, but they are being decapitated everywhere. Usury only benefits the richest 10%, while most of the money ends up with the ‘fabulously’ wealthy.

The enslavement is total: most people work the first two and half days of the week to pay off the bank. Even if they have no debts.

And we face not only enslavement, but extinction. Mass immigration, combined with the demographic catastrophy caused by the trinity of feminism, the not-so-gay lobby, and sexual ‘liberation’, is now threatening to actually destroy the white race. Whites are expected to be a minority all over the West in 2050/2060 and irrelevant by the end of the century.

Capitalism is the core of the Jewish Question. All their other depravities, including Zionism and (Cultural) Marxism were built and financed from the Capitalist powerbase.

The Jewish Question can only be reasonably resolved by reforming money and ending its rule through Usury.

Like this:

Related

Sorry: I did not finish the Bridge illustration, just above the sentence starting with the word “First” :

“It is a hughe tragedy that most churchfolks who call themselves Christian, do so because they know the facts of the Gospel intellectually but not experientially: They have never acted upon their ‘faith in the facts.” Faith without works is dead,” says the Bible in James. If you do not act upon the knowledge – the facts – it profits you not to know the facts. The person who knows that he can cross the brodige to the other side, but never surrenders his life to the bridge and walks to the other side, is just as if he never knew these facts – or simply: an unbeliever. Most churchfolk still stand at the entrance to the Bridge and know not that they must surrender to God, repent and be born again.. I already explained.

The complete comment then becomes (and you can just take the next part instead of what I just posted as one comment):

“Hi, Thanks for posting the interesting article. I found you at Henry Makow’s site. I see you read the Bible. You dismiss the Old Testament, as not needed for a Christian. However: It was ALL the Scriptures the first Christians had. And they declared the Gospel of Jesus Christ – see how apostle Peter does that in Acts 2. But that was after they had been filled with the Holy Spirit. You do not have this experience, neither are you born again. I see that because of the way you talk about the Word of God – you read and apply it as any book: with your mind. However, to begin to understand the Word of God, you gave to have the nature of God: be born of God! Apostle Paul says ALL Scripture is needed for us.

You do not know God! You know of God – but that is a very different thing. It’s like standing at one side of a bridge. You know that you can cross over to the other side by giving your life over to the birdge and follow the bridge to the other side. But you – though knowing some facts about this – have never crossed over this bridge, which is Jesus Christ, Who brings you to the Father when you repent of your sin, doing your own thing, acknowledging that the penalty of sin is death: eternal separation from God, and then asking God to forgive you your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness and reconcile you with the Father by the blood of Jesus, and accepting and confessing Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord, asking Him to lead you to God, and make you His child by being born of Him supernaturally by His Spirit. Then receive and accept His gift of life and life eternal.

It is a hughe tragedy that most churchfolks who call themselves Christian, do so because they know the facts of the Gospel intellectuallky but not experientially: They have never acted upon their ‘faith in the facts.” Faith without works is dead,” says the Bible in James. If you do not act upon the knowledge – the facts – it profits you not to know the facts. The person who knows that he can cross the brodige to the other side, but never surrenders his life to the bridge and walks to the other side, is just as if he never knew these facts – or simply: an unbeliever. Most churchfolk still stand at the entrance to the Bridge and know not that they must surrender to God, repent and be born again.. I already explained.

First of all: “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” 1 Corinthians 10: 11.
Secondly: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God (literally: God-breathed), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV)

WE NEED ALL SCRIPTURE.

This is what you – as a natural man do with Sripture: You do not understand the things of the Spirit says God: ”
1 Corinthians 2:13-15 King James Version (KJV)

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.”

Okay, genoeg. If you want to know more / if I can be of help let me know. “

Hi, Thanks for posting the interesting article. I found you at Henry Makow’s site. I see you read the Bible. You dismiss the Old Testament, as not needed for a Christian. However: It was ALL the Scriptures the first Christians had. And they declared the Gospel of Jesus Christ – see how apostle Peter does that in Acts 2. But that was after they had been filled with the Holy Spirit. You do not have this experience, neither are you born again. I see that because of the way you talk about the Word of God – you read and apply it as any book: with your mind. However, to begin to understand the Word of God, you gave to have the nature of God: be born of God! Apostle Paul says ALL Scripture is needed for us.

You do not know God! You know of God – but that is a very different thing. It’s like standing at one side of a bridge. You know that you can cross over to the other side by giving your life over to the birdge and follow the bridge to the other side. But you – though knowing some facts about this – have never crossed over this bridge, which is Jesus Christ, Who brings you to the Father when you repent of your sin, doing your own thing, acknowledging that the penalty of sin is death: eternal separation from God, and then asking God to forgive you your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness and reconcile you with the Father by the blood of Jesus, and accepting and confessing Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord, asking Him to lead you to God, and make you His child by being born of Him supernaturally by His Spirit. Then receive and accept His gift of life and life eternal.

First of all: “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” 1 Corinthians 10: 11.
Secondly: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God (literally: God-breathed), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV)

WE NEED ALL SCRIPTURE.

This is what you – as a natural man do with Sripture: You do not understand the things of the Spirit says God: ”
1 Corinthians 2:13-15 King James Version (KJV)

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.”

Okay, genoeg. If you want to know more / if I can be of help let me know.

Hello Nazis!! If there was a race in the West responsible for all the hatred and wars it must be the waSSp race. The waSSP invaded the New World and after arriving, quickly began their EXERMINATION of the natives. This is beyond usury. It was an EXTERMINATION. And the waSSp is responsible for the slaughtering the natives. I am proud that I am a ZIONIST and my race, the Jewish race, produced the 10 commandments that the Christians stole and call it ” Old Testament”. Like the waSSP, stealing words from other languages and ruining the pronounciation, the Christian stole everything from the Jew.

You can’t possibly be a real Jew — not because your opinions are obnoxious or supremacist but because your troll post is so devoid of intelligence. Your assertions are so stupid that I doubt anyone can be bothered to correct you.

“And we face not only enslavement, but extinction. Mass immigration, combined with the demographic catastrophy caused by the trinity of feminism, the not-so-gay lobby, and sexual ‘liberation’, is now threatening to actually destroy the white race. Whites are expected to be a minority all over the West in 2050/2060 and irrelevant by the end of the century.”

“In all of recorded history, there was only one civilization which the Jews could not destroy. Because of this, they have given it the silent treatment. Few American college graduates with a Ph.D. degree could tell you what the Byzantine Empire was.

It was the Empire of East Rome, set up by Roman leaders after the Jews had destroyed Rome.

This empire functioned in Constantinople for twelve hundred years, The longest duration of any empire in the history of the world.

Throughout the history of Byzantium, as it was known, by imperial edict, no Jew was allowed to hold any post in the Empire, nor was he allowed to educate the young. The Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Turks after twelve centuries of prosperity, and the Jews have attempted to wipe out all traces of its history.
Yet its edicts against the Jews were not cruel; in fact, the Jews lived unmolested and prosperously in the empire throughout its history, but here alone the vicious cycle of host and parasite did not take place.

It was a Christian civilization, and the Jews were not able to exercise any influence. Nor did the Orthodox priests bewilder their congregations with any vicious lies about Christ being a Jew.

No wonder the Jews want to eradicate the memory of such a culture.
It was Ezra Pound who launched upon a study of Byzantine civilization, and who reminded the world of this happily non-Jewish land.
From the Byzantines, Pound derived his no-violent formula for controlling the Jews.

“The answer to the Jewish problem is simple,” he said.

“Keep them out of banking, out of education, out of government.”

And this is how simple it is.

There is no need to kill the Jews. In fact, every pogrom in history has played into their hands, and has in many instances been cleverly instigated by them.
Get the Jews out of banking and they cannot control the economic life of the community.
Get the Jews out of education and they can not pervert the minds of the young to their subversive doctrines.
Get the Jews out of government and they cannot betray the nation.”

hmm… for some reason the right link didn’t post. A religious solution to a Jewish problem by Nathanael discusses Justinian code. Here is another try. If it doesn’t work again then you will have to do a search on B.N.’s utube links.

>>>> The United States did not revolt over ‘taxes without representation’.
No, they revolted because Whigs in England wanted a revolt. (General Cornwallis did everything he could NOT to defeat Washington’s insurgents…..)

>>>>It was closed in 1800
correction: the charter expired in 1811

>>>> The heroic President Andrew Jackson
The heroic Andrew Jackson who considered gold and silver as money; who warned against paper money; who paid off the national debt using coins…..
the heroic Andrew Jackson with whose performance the House of Rothschild were pleased

>>>>> This privately owned corporation is owned by primarily Jewish ‘member banks’.
But none of ye ever had the bravery to look up who owns these publically traded ‘member banks’ so how can ye say they are jewish banks ?

Quit nitpicking and get at the core meaning. Yes, the banking charter was allowed to expire. How about contributing. The core meaning is the bank expired. Corporations don’t have charters anymore and don’t have to prove they are working in the public trust. How about how Jefferson paid for Louisiana purchase in gold in order not to go into debt, to then allow the charter to expire? This then leads to questions of debt and the legitimacy of a bank that issues debt type money to a country. The usury on the debt can then be had with taxes, forming a financial rent taking oligarchy.

The Heroic Jackson cast about for somebody, or a group to give him guidance. His heart was in the right place, but his head wasn’t. He got bad advice and created an inflexible money system. The Rotenchilds, advanced in the science of money, probably were laughing to themselves. Usury casts a pall over the mind of man as it funds propaganda. Aristotle taught us the true nature of money.

Jefferson and Washington had an excuse, the bank of England was only in 1694 and credit of this type, where it hosted a country, was new on the world scene. Jackson maybe can be excused as well as it take some time to see and understand the effects..

Eustace Mullins spent his life looking into the Federal Reserve by using original source material at the LIbrary of Congress. Should we dismiss him as not being an original researcher? Mullins very clearly traces the FED to Jewish and their Gentile Sayanim’s as progenitors of the FED.

“most of the stock of member banks that owned stock in the Federal Reserve was owned by City of London bankers, since they owned much of the stock of the member banks. He attempted to trace stock ownership, as it changed hands via mergers and acquisitions, from the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913 to the early 1980s”

The case is already made that City of London private debt spreading bank operations is a Jewish construct.

get at the core meaning
the core meaning is that these book-peddlers are just in-it-for-the-money charlatans, and their groupies are village idiots, sorely lacking knowledge, morality, logic, critical thinking

Beautiful Jews: Moses, Joshua and Jesus forbid usury. Don’t fall for the false flag by blaming patsy Jews. Mammon = Synagogue of Satan. Mammon has stolen the identity of the Israelites as revenge for the Promised Land Jubilee of Joshua. “Love the sinner; hate the sin”. Usury is to blame and would continue even if no Jews existed. “We are One”. Separation consciousness only serves the “father of lies”.

I wouldn’t call Jesus a Jew Wayne, I think he was an Israelite, not a Judean. Today’s Jews represent the edomites, not the twelve tribes.

Having said that: on principle I agree of course: Usury is bigger than Jewry and should we take the Jews out of the equation, our own gentile ‘elites’ would simply fill the vacuum and continue the bloodsucking through the banks and Usury. They have been a team with the Jews since the medieval era.

We have an excellent historical case in Adolf Hitler, who rounded up the Jewish masses, but left the banks unscathed, with the same owners and who gladly worked with ‘German’ elites to create a huge warring machine. Hardly my idea of the way forward, but quite popular at the moment.

However, it’s simply a fact that the Jews are at the heart of the Money Power and that Jewish Nationalism is their main front. And Jewish Nationalism is even a taboo! I’m sick and tired of that and normal Jewish people who think they are entitled to ‘trigger warnings’ about ‘the Holocaust’ and ‘antisemtism’ need a huge wake up call, not pampering.

Jewish Nationalism/Supremacism AND religion has been a thorn in the side of the Gentile nations for millennia and Jews have only one viable way forward in my view: complete distancing of Jewishness, because it is rotten to the core and if they don’t they are bound to go down with their masters who will gladly sacrifice them in the name of Mammon.

However, the answer to Usury is not ending Jewry, the answer to Jewry is ending Usury. Simple as that and that is and remains Real Currencies’ message.

It’s upsetting that this blog, otherwise very spot-on, is stuck in Jew-blaming.
For more on the history of Jewish involvement in the growth of capitalism and nation-states read Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism.
The short of it is that Jews didn’t drive capitalism. I’d say that it’s more like capitalist nations drove a small handful of Jews.
It’s also quite problematic that you determine a specific solution for Jews and claim that Jewishness is rotten to the core.
Perhaps you might want to inverse your logic–it’s not up to you to decide what any ethnic community should or should not do. The demand that ethnic communities assimilate or be annihilated is central to the growth of the capitalist nation-state. This is the same ideology that seems to drive your own argument that there are some ethnic minorities that are more to blame than others. It is also the same ideology that is at the root of 1) capitalist expansionism 2) european (white) exceptionalism 3) genocidal colonialism 4) zionist supremacism.
One example of this kind of thinking is your “heroic” Andrew Jackson. You might be pleased to learn that Andrew Jackson had one of the most significant roles in the genocide of Indian peoples of any president of the US, ever. “Under the leadership of President Jackson, the U.S. Government ended even its limited recognition of Indian sovereignty, and openly encouraged land speculators and local settlers to start seizing Indian land at gunpoint. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding Cherokee sovereignty vs. the state of Georgia was publicly ridiculed by Jackson, who refused to enforce it. In 1830 Jackson finally got Congress to Pass the Removal Act, which authorized him to use the army to totally relocate or exterminate all Indians east of the Mississippi River. The whole Eastern half of this continent was now to be completely cleared of Indians….In magnitude this was as sweeping as Hitler’s grand design to render continental Europe “free” of Jews. Under Jackson’s direction, the U.S. Army committed genocide on an impressive scale. The Cherokee Nation, for instance, was dismantled, with one-third of the Cherokee population dying in the Winter of 1838 (from disease, famine, exposure and gunfire as the U.S. Army marched them away at bayonet point on ” The Trail of Tears9′.”
I could write a more exhaustive comment but I’m tired from making this argument to people who try to take the easy way out of a problem (racism). This easy way out perpetuates other systems that things like Usury thrives on… for example, nation-states that rely on corrupt banking systems to support themselves.

Many white people like Anthony Migchels have lived good lives of the proceeds of their books explaining they had nothing to do with it and that the root of capitalism is a typical jewish trait.
Nobody, not even the Dutch, deny that Amsterdam was a key hub of colonialist white people.
One needs to be willfully blind to overlook the whiteness of teh City in London and Wall street.

Well, it’s quite simple: you have Dutch bankers in Amsterdam, English bankers in London and American Bankers in Wall Street.

Jewish Bankers are everywhere. Just as they themselves brag about ‘controlling the media’. Just as we see Jewish people running porn, feminism, the homolobby, multiculturalism, in short: all these nasty schemes to distract from Jewish Usury.

Hmm… and so how would you explain the rise of East Asian finance, where there are very little Jewish people involved (but a lot of white people)? Seems to me like you’re pointing to a context-dependent, historically-specific phenomenon where a certain ethnic community was placed at the center of the formation of capitalist nation-states, arguing that they themselves are the cause of the formation of capitalism.

Because the money lenders are ultimately completely cosmopolitan denizenofearth. They don’t care about the common Jews, they are a synagogue of Satan. For them Jewish Supremacy is just a useful front and they sacrifice Jews just as easily as all the rest. But that does not mean that there is not a Jewish question, or that there is not a serious disease rotting at the core of Judaism.

It’s surprising how easily you jump from pointing to a small capitalist class committing usury to extending this to a “rot” at the core of Judaism.
Throughout our discussion I have not once noticed you acknowledge my main point that I have stated several times, namely, that the “Jewish question” arose as a symptom, not of some kind of problem at the center of judaism, but of the rise of nation-states and their reliance on the development of the market society for governance.
I described Hannah Arendt’s work because it stands as a thorough explanation of this phenomenon and points to how specific jews (and not jews as a whole) were implicated in this process of state formation. You dismissed Arendt as simply a Jew apologist, which suggests that either you are unaware of Arendt who was perhaps the most prominent, respected, and unbending critic of Judaism of her time, or worse that you think just because someone is jewish and seeks to research the history of the state and its relationships to the jewish people that that makes them an apologist and unworthy of attention. I would turn the argument around and say that Arendt, who experienced both the conservative Jewish orthodoxy, the worst of capitalist-socialist totalitarianism, and the Jewish response by forming a capitalist state of their own, as perhaps one of the most appropriate commentators on this situation, having key inside knowledge of it. To criticize her as simply making money off of Jewish apologism stands, in both cases, as an ignorant rebuke to a reasoned, experienced argument.
That aside, and you can put down Arendt as much as you want, you have not yet explained why the rot at the core of Judaism stands as a better argument for explaining the rise of endemic usury, than the creation of nation-states themselves which requires the formation of a class of moneylenders to initiate programs of assimilation and structural genocide (often at the expense of this class of moneylenders when they are perceived to be of a different ethnicity). I’d love to see an explanation explaining exactly why Jewish social institutions were key in creating the nation-state system of capitalism (as opposed to my argument which states that on the contrary the Jewish Question came about as a result of, and only because of, the racist formation of the state) that doesn’t rely on generalizations that totally fail to rely on substantive historical evidence.

You are either Jewish, Anglo-Saxon, confused or brainwashed. You do, however, point out an important fact which few others do, to wit, the forced assimilationist or “Melting Pot” nature of SOME capitalist nation-states such as Anglo-Saxon Amerikka even before the Jews jumped in to gleefully support it except for themselves, of course.

It’s funny that you find the need to resort to assumptions about race here. What a poor rebuttal to my argument. I don’t even need to validate it with a response, which is negative, by the way.
You concede that the United States was racist from the start. But then you refer to “the Jews” as a whole without noting that actually only 1% of Jews stood to gain from capitalist nation-creation, the rest remained in poverty and racialized and many were forced to move to their own version of a capitalist colonialist nation-state–Israel–or remain in poverty. This betrays the fact that while you yourself concede that there are problems with capitalist nation-states and assimilationism, your own arguments and viewpoints are obscured by false, racist, and inevitably fascist assumptions.

For your information, fascism is the pinnace of the capitalist nation-state, which takes as its main ideology the fact that nations should be comprised of a single ethnicity, and all others should be either excluded, assimilated, or annihilated.

Also, question: Why do you spell Amerikkka with two Ks, not three? Is it a conscious choice?

Your failure to accept the fact that Talmudic Jewry has be the driving force behind usury since Jesus threw them out of the temple only reveals your ignorance history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWPYQjXSYA In every age these Talmudic cabals have dominated banking and ruled nations from behind the thrones. They do so today almost completely: they own all 6 media corps, they run the Fed Reserve cartel, and dictate domestic and foreign policy in most western nations. In 16 countries Zionist Jews have outlawed free speech regarding the Jewish Holohoax, an attempt to bilk Germans for reparations.

Certainly not all Jews belong to this Rabinical cabal, but most go along with the program of Jewish Supremacism because they are lied to as well. Anyone here criticizing Zionism isn’t referring to the ignorant brainwashed Jewish masses. If you can’t understand this distinction then you are just spoiling for a contentious quarrel that many are bored with by now.

Tim, I do not want to go into lecture mode, but there are some serious errors in how you comment.
1 ) I make a comment on “Money” and then you change the subject and make an erroneous claim about “Currency”
“but you never got that fact the the currency remains the banks property”

The error in your claim, is that currency is/was a “promissory note” it used to actually say “I promise to pay the bearer on demand…” it belonged to whoever held the note.
The current banknotes and coinage is issued by a central bank and requires a “Law” that says that the currency is legal tender for all debts, public and private within the territory of the country. Does not infer or convey ownership.
The coinage and notes are “Owned” (i.e. the property of) by whoever holds them, not by the Central bank.
This is a fact and there is nothing to debate.

“All currency is issued as a loan, at interest.” Again this is simple not true. You are conflating Sovereign Debt with Currency, two completely different things.
Many countries have no debt, many countries have paid off their debt. Yet they have currencies. Currency, is completely different from “Fiat Money”, which is completely different from sovereign debt.
You see, you simply do not understand what you are saying, or you are being dishonest.

2) Do I realise … “Lending is a fraud”, this is nonsensical. It makes no sense in English, ( I will lend you my pen..), It makes no sense in law, and it makes no sense in connection with loans from banks. I.e. Mortgages, capital or overdrafts. They are not a “Fraud”. Your usage of the English language is abominable.
fraud
noun
“wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.”
a) it is not “Wrongful” (i.e. it is legal)
b) it is not Criminal
c) most importantly, it is not deception, the “deal” is spelt out very clearly without deception.

If you wish to argue that it (credit creation) is “immoral” or that it is “unethical” then that is a separate issue and can be discussed on that basis, (whose morality and whose ethics) but your claim makes no sense in the terms that you have stated it.

If you are trying to make a point please put it in regular English.

3) “They pretend to be ‘lending their money’ but in fact, they aren’t.”
What do you mean by this, firstly, you are plain wrong.
They do not pretend to be ‘lending their money’, the provide a credit facility, they create credit, nowhere do they claim or pretend that “they” are lending “their” money.

4) You make claims:
“No one can own the things they need to live, it’s ridiculous.”
It is just a stupid comment.
In this you claim that I cannot own the things I need to live (food, clothing, housing). Then who does own them?
If I need things (physical commodities) to live then there must be ownership. If there is ownership then someone must own them. The context in which you made the claim, was that if a person other than the owner needed something to live then he/she had some right to those things. My question was If you need something to live, and you don’t own it, what then? Do you have a claim on the thing?
Who granted those rights?

You claimed:
“The essence, and problem, of usury is perpetual debt.”
This is just nonsense, any debt and all debt “could” be paid off. If the debt is never repaid or if the specific debt is so great that the person/s owing the debt cannot repay it then, the debt continues as an unpaid debt or is “forgiven” when the payee defaults.
Usury only contributes in that the debt is increased.

You claim:
“Being forced to pay perpetually for something you can never own. In which case we must define taxes as usury.”
Again, this just makes no sense. You can pay “perpetually” for services. You can pay “perpetually” penalties (i.e. alimony, support), You can pay “perpetually” rent, none of these will you “Own”. It is a personal choice whether to “own” things or “use” things.

“define taxes as usury.” Humpty Dumpty words.

If you wish to debate or discuss then please make some point with the relative logic and sources of your position.

If you cannot or will not use words in the regular meaning, then we cannot communicate and no discussion is possible.

Don’t be a churlish lout; you know very well that is what he meant to say was that Usury is a fraud. Nobody (honest or rational) here has an issue with interest free lending. To charge unearned rents for the creation of credit as a loan — which requires no previous capital saved, or work — by keystrokes ex nihlo is blatant theft.

Also, Usury expressed by the simple formula, P + I > P, does guarantee default. Simpletons of the Austrian school think that this isn’t true because many will be able to pay off their loans. What they don’t understand is that because the interest wasn’t also created, there will always be others that cannot. These people will forfeit real assets for fictitious debt as compounded interest. This is how the elites are able to plunder all the wealth of society in broad daylight perpetually over time.

In the USA the currency is the property of the banks. Because our country remain in default to the Fed, all that anyone purchases with this currency belongs to the FED. There are no allodial titles. You possess property by their permission and can be taxed for the privilege. We are all indentured wage servants without realizing it.

Nothing I said was rude or surly,uncouth or aggressive, but if you want to make irrelevant interjections, go ahead.

If he meant to say that Usury is a fraud, then he has the words to say so, are you suggesting that I should answer what he “means” to say, how do I know that you “mean” to say what you write? So I will continue to address what is written so that I cannot be accused of mis-stating or mis interpreting the comment.

To address some of your points, “To charge unearned rents” surely the definition is that all “rents” are “unearned”. “temporary use of a good, service or property owned by another” i.e. the owner gets income without production or effort, isn’t that what you mean by “unearned”?
With regard to your ” the simple formula”, this is also plainly wrong and only applies in mathematics not in life.
There is no rule or law that explicitly or implicitly requires the repayment to be monetary, or of the same currency. I lend (create credit) Russia $1bn to develop an oil field. they exchange the credit for equipment and labour and extract the oil, which they then exchange for ofter goods or value. They return to me $1bn plus 100 barrels of oil, being the interest on the loan. The deal is honest, and simple.
The creation of credit is not the same as the printing of currency.

“real assets for fictitious debt” in what way was the debt fictitious?
If you are talking about Sovereign debt, where a government accepts credit on the basis that some future person/s (i.e. taxpayers) will repay plus interest, then it is a different scenario and different rules / outcomes.
Do I think that a government should raise sovereign debt? no.
Do I think that currency should be raised and controlled through Central or Federal banks? no.
I personally think that it is immoral and unethical, but it certainly is not “fictitious” someone exchanged real goods or services, nothing fictitious about it.

“This is how the elites are able to plunder all the wealth of society”, not really, the real power of monetary control and issuance is through the over and under supply of credit.
Interest is just the cherry on top.
Thomas Jefferson understood this clearly:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

“In the USA the currency is the property of the banks” No you are wrong.
“Currency” is issued and retired by the US Treasury department. It is distributed by the Fed, as they are the bank which has day-to-day dealings with the commercial banks (clearing and settlement) and who hold the “banks” funds.

You also confuse Currency with Money. Currency is only a small part of a country’s money, to allow settlement of non-electronic transactions.

The problem with the current system is that US (and most other countries) enter into Sovereign debt agreements with Federal and Central Banks.
These debts are used not for creating wealth, income or production but for paying current expenses. That is why they cannot be repaid except by looting savings, natural resources or other countries. Borrowing too much is nuisance, but countries do it all the time. Then they default, it has been a long time since the US has defaulted, but it has to happen some day. As with Detroit, when it defaults, it writes off all it’s debts, including your savings and pensions, which you thought was “funded”. Naturally, most of the assets will go to the overseas investors, as a) they have guns (really big nuclear ones) and more importantly b) the politicians want to borrow more money next year , after the “re-set”.
Remember Gutele Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife died, before her death she would state, “If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.” and if the countries did not borrow money, there would be fewer excuses.

What has happened is that, as previously, the government has allowed private banks to create unlimited credit (repeal of Glass Steagall, and lifting of liquidity ratio rules)
When commercial banks can create unlimited credit then there is no way for the country to control it’s money. (Even though it controls it’s currency) This is why Basel I, Basel II and Basel III have been negotiated but no-one has the power to force compliance except on small banks. Hence the Stress tests and the complete failure of the banking industry. And this is why you have endless “Bubbles” from the Tulip bubble of Holland to the Mortgage bubble of 2008.

“In the USA the currency is the property of the banks. Because our country remain in default to the Fed, all that anyone purchases with this currency belongs to the FED. ” that sounds profound, but is absolute nonsense. The ownership of land has nothing to do with the Fed (unless the land is held in guarantee of a government mortgage) it is because the “owners” of the US Corporation (established long before the Fed) have planned it that way.

It is true that you cannot “Own” land and the reason is always the same. The land you claim is yours, was once “owned” by someone else, right up until someone with a gun (or bigger sword) came and took it from them. Similarly, your land is only yours as long as you can hold it from predation. The fact that the most common predator is your government is just coincidence. Ask any of the early Texas inhabitants or New Mexico, oh, that is right, ask any of the 10 million Americans who were there before the immigrants arrived.

Your heart is in the right place but your logic and history is somewhat lacking.

“A currency (from Middle English: curraunt, “in circulation”, from Latin: currens, -entis) in the most specific use of the word refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation, as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money. This use is synonymous with banknotes, or (sometimes) with banknotes plus coins, meaning the physical tokens used for money by a government,”

“The money supply of a country consists of currency (banknotes and coins) and usually includes bank money (the balance held in checking accounts and savings accounts). Bank money, which consists only of records (mostly computerized in modern banking), forms by far the largest part of broad money in developed countries”

To repeat
“Bank money, which consists only of records (mostly computerized in modern banking), forms by far the largest part of broad money in developed countries”
Bank Money is not currency, it is not issued or controlled by the Fed or the Treasury, yet it is “by far the largest part of broad money ”

PJ, you’re a hypocrite. You accuse me of sophistry and using poor definitions, and here you are doing that yourself.
Sophistry – a false or misleading argument (made with the intent to deceive).
Your discussion of the different forms of money is irrelevant to the point in discussion. It’s a false and misleading argument. It brings nothing to the discussion but your own confusion.

Did you really say that mathematics doesn’t have any application outside of formulas ? I think you’ve just identified yourself as a world class idiot.

What service is a usury banker providing that he should be rewarded with interest? Does he have anything to lend? no, there is no actual savings as a pre existing deposit from which he has on hand to lend you. Nothing. The money for the loan is created when you sign the application. It comes into being as interest bearing debt. The banker want to be paid for providing you with something he doesn’t have, plus interest. There is no cost, risk or labor involved in usury. Making money from money is parasitic and only engenders debt for society.

This is why banking should be nationalized. The government can create credit and issue loans without interest. They are many successful example throughout history. One shining example in the USA is the bank of North Dakota, which has operated as public entity since 1919.

My comment “With regard to your ” the simple formula”, this is also plainly wrong and only applies in mathematics not in life.”
I was clearly referring to ” the simple formula”, that you wrote and whether that specific formula applies in the real world of banking and finance, it is not equivalent to “really say that mathematics doesn’t have any application outside of formulas”.

I think that we have identified the problem, you cannot understand English.

Your comment about world class idiot really applies to the fool who cannot read with comprehension.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

Your problem is that you are not familiar with Thomas Jefferson’s views and writings; otherwise you would know that the above is not a quote

“The citation is wrong… there were letters exchanged between an economist and Jefferson. THERE you will find the quote which starts “I TOO believe…” as it was a response to the economist’s letter!!!! Look into it. Dont spread false information. The movement is weak enough.”

One citation claims that it was written as a concurring letter re some other economist viewpoint.

““I will close with Thomas Jefferson’s Warning To America :”

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

” Written by Jefferson in a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802).”…

Hi pm, just to clarify: Banking is based on the fraud of ‘lending’… Please see other posts…

Usury is a separate issue. I feel it’s misdefined – i.e. it’s defined too narrowly – and that allows them to get away with it… Specifically, we have to pay *usury* on all our activities, via tax, because we are denied ownership of our own bodies (or anything) by the legal system.
Only the state can ‘own’ anything, citizens can ‘hold’ and ‘use’ things, but never own them.

It’s ‘collectivism’, of course. The group takes precedence over the individual. The obvious extension to nations is that all property is now held in trust by government for ‘the collective’ – i.e. by the state, for the state. I don’t own my lawnmower, everyone in the ‘commonwealth’ does. Bizarre but that’s what the ‘law’ says.

PJ, you’re conflating ownership and legal title. Hence your misunderstanding.
I’ve said this before, perhaps this time it’ll sink in…? You don’t *own* anything. Nothing. Not even your body. It’s all owned by the state. You just have legal title to *use* it. You don’t own those bank notes – just like you don’t own your own house / car / children etc. All are owned by the state.

Calling ‘loans’ loans absolutely is fraud. Where does money come from PJ? *All* money / currency is issued as a ‘loan’. But it’s not a loan in the English sense of the word, because the *money is created by the borrower*.

“nowhere do they claim or pretend that “they” are lending “their” money.”
That’s a patently false statement, that’s *exactly* what they claim they’re doing. That’s why they’re called ‘lenders’ – making ‘loans’. People who go for a loan are lead to believe the money existed before the loan – and it’s being *lent* to them. Hence the word. The banks financially gain by this deception. That’s textbook fraud.

Every one of your points is incorrect. You need to study, not lecture. Insulting me won’t change the facts.

Own :
To have rightful possession of (property, goods or capital); “To possess by right; to have the right of property in; to have the legal right or rightful title to.”

“Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.”
The money is created by the bank and a deposit is entered into the borrowers account.
If the “borrower” created the money, why would they go to a bank?

” People who go for a loan are lead to believe the money existed before the loan ” by whom?
Who says to a borrower that the money existed before the loan?

“Banks create money in the economy by making loans. The amount of money that banks can lend is directly affected by the reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve. The reserve requirement is currently 3 percent to 10 percent of a bank’s total deposits.” It is called Fractional banking.
In addition in most countries, the central bank (or other monetary authority) regulates bank credit creation, imposing reserve requirements and capital adequacy ratios. This can limit the amount of money creation that occurs in the commercial banking system, and helps to ensure that banks are solvent and have enough funds to meet demand for withdrawals

Sunshine you use your definitions and change english to suit yourself as much as you want. It does not make it right and it does make any sense.

If you want to create a parallel language that has meaning only to you that is your privilege, but I cannot be further bothered to play word games.

PJ, Stop being so condescending. Your ego is preventing you from learning, and it’s making you look a fool.

LEGAL TITLE ~ One cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, or one which is complete and perfect and possession, BUT WHICH CARRIES NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, ANOTHER PERSON BEING EQUITABLY ENTITLED THERETO

EQUITABLE OWNER ~ One who is recognized in equity as owner of the property, BECAUSE REAL AND BENEFICIAL USE AND TITLE BELONG TO HIM, even though bare legal title is invested in another.

Hi PJ. I respect your view, definitions are rarely changed for the better. :)
Your definition is no doubt the ‘correct’ one, but in this case I think it could be usefully improved.
(Unless, of course, there’s already a word I’m not aware of that conveys the same meaning?)

I would suggest:
Usury: An immoral practice whereby ownership of a necessity is denied, and a perpetual rent must be paid for the use thereof.

I feel this definition would fit better with the etymology, and express the deeper concepts involved more clearly.

Words are powerful and important, as are definitions. They define culture. If ‘usury’ was explained in these terms to people, it would empower them. Therefore I suggest it would be an improvement.

Now you are entering an ares of property,
Do you claim that your necessity trumps my ownership?
What rights does (should) an owner have over a property?.
Should you take my food (with or without compensation) because there are children starving in India?
What if you need a kidney, it is necessary for your survival, do you have the right to extract one of mine?
Does your “need” over-ride my “wants” if so why?
Do you own my production?
By the way, I am a Libertarian “John Galt”

PJ, you’re muddying the waters and/or missing the point. It was always about property.
Usury on money is because the money is the property of the banks. Ownership of money is not possible for the people. Money is ‘owned’ by the banks by fraud. Your body is owned by the government. Did you explicitly agree to that?
Why the list emotive, unrelated issues such as kidney extraction? A skeptic might think you’re trying to confuse the argument because you’re losing it. I notice you haven’t refuted the logic of any of my arguments.

1) I am responding directly to your question., about a “new” definition

Usury: An immoral practice whereby ownership of a necessity is denied, and a perpetual rent must be paid for the use thereof.

2) I am not arguing

3) You are the one who used the term “ownership”

4) of course “Money” is a property, not necessarily of the bank, but initially of the person/entity issuing the money. It is just a promise to pay, such as Bitcoin, but ownership can be transferred, as in when you are paid and thus becomes the property of the person holding the promise.

5) I have no idea what your arguments are about, I was responding to your misuse of the English language.

6) In reading your posts you are not demonstrating any logic, just emotive sophistry

7) if you want to make an point, you must please clearly state what your point is.

You make claims:
“No one can own the things they need to live, it’s ridiculous.”
“The essence, and problem, of usury is perpetual debt.”
“Being forced to pay perpetually for something you can never own. In which case we must define taxes as usury.”
These claims are nonsensical but irrefutable because you are using “Humpty Dumpty” english.

You totally exclude vast swathes of goods and services, claim no-one can own anything, claim that debts are perpetual, these are not arguments, they are a weird and bizarre misuse of english.

I was trying to get you to see that your english did not accord with the natural usage, you think that new definitions are better, how can anyone communicate when your language is used only by you?

If you want a discussion on the basis of English, why do you not answer two of my questions
Do you claim that your necessity trumps my ownership?
Do you own my production?
because that is what your claims imply.

PJ. You clearly don’t understand how banking works, how the law works, or what ownership is.
Hence your inability to understand what I’ve written.
It probably fair to assume that you don’t really get language either.
You accuse me of sophistry, and then ask me to answer your false arguments. That’s hypocrisy. Your insults and closed-mind show you have no intention to genuinely debate. What a shame.

Tim 1 last response and then I am gone.
I spent 4 years as an expert in Central Banking and Projects with one of the richest Central Banks in the world, in the Middle East. Salaam Aleikum
I then spent 6 years developing the most advanced Clearing and Settlement systems in the world, currently operating in South America and 13 countries. (13 Central Banks covering some 800 commercial banks) (Try to develop a Gridlock Resolution Algorithm for unlimited users and transactions, then come and talk to me about banking knowledge, don’t forget the automatic creation and dissolution of REPO’s)
I then moved to Brussels and in one of the European banks, I Was the SEPA expert for Roll-out and implementation across Europe of the SEPA clearing system.
In the UK I worked for 2 of the Major (Big 5 banks) as an expert consultant in banking and settlement. Both in the project side and in the development and accounting side.
To tell me that I do not know any thing about banking is a joke, and yes, I know the history of banking from Goldsmiths to today. I left banking as I could not reconcile what they were doing with my ethics, and the fact that they were unhappy that I told them that they were in fact breaking the law. Well they have had to pay very heavy penalties.
I get language, you are the Humpty Dumpty who makes words mean whatever you want in place of using the correct terms. (Hence Sophistry)
I do not have any arguments, I merely asked you two questions, based on your statement about “ownership”. Ownership by definition implies property, so I asked your position on property, nothing fallacious, nothing off-target only following your leading statements.
You would not wish to debate as it requires both honesty, intellect and a common language.

“of course “Money” is a property, not necessarily of the bank, ”
PJ. All those years, but you never got that fact the the currency remains the banks property? Wow… All currency is issued as a loan, at interest. If there was no debt, there would be no money. If it wasn’t the bank’s property, how could they charge a usage fee on it?

So, you told them they were breaking the law. Good. Did you realise that the very act of ‘lending’ is fraud – given that banks don’t actually ‘lend’ in the commonly understood meaning of the word at all, but rather create the deposit after the loan is agreed? They pretend to be ‘lending their money’ but in fact, they aren’t.

Your questions were spurious. My argument is not against property ownership, on the contrary, it against the denial of property ownership… If you’d read my posts you’d have got that.
You ask: “Do you claim that your necessity trumps my ownership?”
No, absolutely not. Do you? Are you really a libertarian? Do you believe in the ‘necessity’ of tax?

You do like throwing the old insults around, eh. You probably won’t get this (either) but it’s one of those laws of the universe that ‘you can only judge yourself’… That would mean it’s actually you who doesn’t wish to debate for the reasons you mentioned… Prove me wrong?

Usury is paying for the use of something. It’s not just related to money, it’s any ‘rental’.

Simple: Use-ury – relating to use.

Google mis-defines it as: “the action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest.”. Modern dictionaries are ‘sophisticated’. I.e. corrupted (the real meaning of the word).

Usury is morally wrong because it involves someone who *has* charging someone who *has not*.
It always results in the poor being charged for the use of the rich’s property.

Usury is the feudal system. It’s economic slavery.
Paying rent is usury. It’s through property rentals that the feudal system oppresses the people.
Paying for the use of anything – be it money, or goods – is usury.

Rubbish!!!
Usury is only the charging of interest for the “use” of money and cannot be applied to any other form of loan.
All other charges for the use of fixed asset comes under “rent”, moveable assets come under “hire”
You cannot make up English to suit yourself or your agenda.
Not unless you are Humpty Dumpty. ““When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.””

Hi PJ,
I’ll concede that the word has historically been tied to the lending of money, but it’s etymology is generic, and the ‘spirit’ of usury – i.e. charging for the use of something – which you have to return anyway – is inherent in property rental too.
This is a decent article on the rationale behind interest: http://distributistreview.com/mag/2011/07/the-errors-of-the-economists-usury/

In either case you pay for the use of the thing, but you also return the thing.

With money-rental, the money-owners charge for the use of their money, which must be returned according to the contract.
With property-rental, the property-owners charge for the use of their property, which must be returned according to the contract.

The essence, and problem, of usury is perpetual debt. It applies to things you can never own, but must perpetually pay to use.
This is how the feudal system works: ownership is denied (in one way or another), and a rental is the only alternative.

In our modern-day feudal-system ownership is reserved to the state. We own nothing, and must perpetually pay tribute to the state in order to use our own bodies – which the state owns. You can’t do anything without having to pay tax… So I’d say taxes are a kind of usury too.

I’m currently of the opinion that the ‘gift-economy’ is the natural model for humans.
The money-economy, I hypothesise, is not of human origin.
Legends say our civilisation was given to us by the ‘gods’. That would have included ‘money’ of course.

Anthony, I didn’t think you would agree to Tim’s argument. I see it as very flawed. If someone has legitimately come to possess an item that has utility or usufruct such as a dwelling or a mule, they should also have the right to rent it as PJ also opined. We are speaking of a tangible item, not money which is supposed to be an item of calculation.

Also, his comment on taxes is confusing. Would that included tithes, zakat, local municipality taxes? How can a legitimate government serve its people without a reasonable tax? A gift economy, certainly not.

Rejecting that simple notion takes us into anarchy type of thinking, no? Your arguments are usually tough to disagree with but here you should elaborate on the fundamental rights of ownership.

Well yes, I understand and mainly I keep to the classical definition of ‘interest on loans of money’. But Tim points at an important issue: what is classical? In even older times, Usury was considered taking more than lended for goods that did not multiply, like money or land. Capital goods.

Livestock and certain produced (seedbearing etc) that would multiply during the loan, taken some of that would have been acceptable.

Ross too is, rightly, keen on equating Usury with rents and at the very least we can easily see that interest on loans of money is the foundation of all rents (keeping money scarce and expensive leads to rents automatically).

Guys, you are confusing “earning” with Usury.
There is no prohibition on loans or rents, traditionally, for loans (including animals and tools, seed etc.) the payment was a part of what was produced. I will lend you my Hog for mating and I get 1 (2 whatever) piglets, a percentage of the crop…. E.g. the parable of the Talents.
When it comes to dwellings or land, rent again became part of your production. E.g. in feudal times, you had a cottage and in return worked 2 days a week for the Squire or Lord, and/or had to hand over 25% of your produce (including additional animals of the period). Sharecroppers, Crofters et al.
Usury is specifically the charging of interest on loans, especially compound interest for specific periods. As in Whipping the money lenders from the Temple.
It was outlawed by the Christian churches until around 500/600 AD, but because the moneylenders were making out like crazy, the priests (Pope) decided it was too good a racket to leave to foreigners.
The traditional way for Christians (and Indian moguls) to screw over the peasants was to lend money and then make them buy at the company store. (you work 16 hours and what do you get…….) They only lent to employees and “bondsmen”. The Company towns were everywhere, and this was why the “West” (go west young man) was so popular, if you survived, you were free.
E.g. Scottish Lairds would pay the tenants £10 when a child was born, to the parents. The amount had to be paid back before the child’s 18 birthday, (the average job earned £1 per year) or the child became a bonded tenant. Thereafter, you could not pay it back, you were bonded for life. They posted guards at the borders of their lands to ensure that none escaped (which was why rivers were so popular as boundaries) and would severely punish (up to and including hanging) for attempting such a deed.
They simply paid wages that meant that the peasants could never repay the loan, whereupon it then was carried over to the children or relatives (sounds familiar, Student loans and taxes).

Usury is solely the lending of money at interest for specific periods.

A discussion on monetary supply and policy is interesting, but has nothing to do with Usury.

What you describe is the medieval take. And in terms of monetary theory I stick to the ‘interest on loans of money’ definition too. But in (pre) Biblical times this was a general consideration. And your example itself shows the lunacy of landrents. The landed Aristocracy was not as bad as the Money Power, but it is hardly an example of freedom either.

I’m not fundamentalistically opposed to a few bucks here and there when renting an appartment or whatever in a Usury free economy, when it serves mutual convenience, but in general we need land reform almost as bad as monetary reform.

What I am describing is the fact that if I give you the use of something, land, seed, tools etc. then I am deprived of the use of that for or by myself.
Therefore I am “entitled” to some recompense for the fact that I am deprived of such use.
Unless you subscribe to the concept that no-one should own more than that which they can have for their own personal use or consumption, then such charges, called rent, seem just.

Money itself is a special case, in that I cannot consume money, nor can I use it except to lend or spend (for consumption, saving is “not-using”)
The charging of interest on money, is a special case, in that you cannot realistically say you can have my house for a year but must give me a 5% larger house in return.

With other forms of money “lending” you can (as in Islamic banking) use “Venture Capitalism” in that the loan is made in expectation of a repayment plus a share of the profits, as recompense for the risk that you my not repay me.
This (financing of East India trade) was how the Dutch became so rich, the Venetians, the Portuguese, Spanish, English et al.

Hi PJ,
“Usury is solely the lending of money at interest for specific periods.”
Actually, that definition is outdated. These days it means: “lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest”. So the definition now is narrower than it was at the time of St. Thomas Aquinas. It has changed.
Is it possible that definition was also narrowed *before* the time of St Thomas? Is it possible that it originally meant paying for use, and that definition has become steadily narrower over time? I’d say that it is possible, perhaps even likely.

As you’re happy to expand it’s (current) meaning to include any rate of interest, I also think it’s perfectly reasonable to re-expand the meaning to include the concept of denial of ownership, and perpetual debt. Being forced to pay perpetually for something you can never own. In which case we must define taxes as usury.

As for property rental: In an genuinely civilised culture, such as the native Americans enjoyed before they were genocided, houses are given to people free. If a person needed a house, their neighbors & family would build them one, for free. That is how free humans behave.
This isn’t a civilised society, it’s a feudal system. No one can own the things they need to live, it’s ridiculous.

Hi Tim,
These days it means: “lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest” :

the politicians when trying to rein in the banks and money lenders introduced that weaselly definition. the full title was “The Usury Act 1660 is an Act of the Parliament of England (12 Car. II. c. 13) with the long title “An Act for restraining the taking of Excessive Usury”.[1]
You will note that the were against “Excessive Usury”

They recognised that all lending at interest was Usury, but wanted to reduce the rate from 8% to a maximum of 6%.

This was just mealymouthed Christians who had been banned from lending money for interest by successions of clergy and Popes, and excommunicated Userers.

Of course they repealed the act in 1850, and since then you can do what you like, but the bible has specific instructions regarding the issue :

If a man … hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase;
shall he live? He shall not live . . . he shall surely die.–Ezekiel 18:
5, 13.
From this came :
“Medieval Christian interest payment theology began with the First Council of Nicaea (325), which forbade clergy from engaging in usury.”

Later the Pope issued :
” On Usury and Other Dishonest Profit” was an encyclical, promulgated by Pope Benedict XIV on November 1, 1745, which condemned the practice of charging interest on loans as usury.”

Again he declared the charging of any interest as Usury, but expanded it from applying to the clergy to a general prohibition.

“As you’re happy to expand it’s (current) meaning to include any rate of interest, ”
No Tim I want to stick to the correct meaning and recognise that changing words to suit a particular viewpoint is unethical and lies only in the realm of 1984 or Goebbels (or Clinton)

Hi Jibril. I understand your objection.
The crux is “If someone has legitimately come to possess an item”.
In the case of renting something you have the option to own yourself, that’s not usury, it’s a choice. It’s only usury when you are denied the opportunity of ownership. With money, the banks own it, and you never can. That’s usury. In a feudal system where serfs are unable to own property outright, that is usury. (Yes, that’s what we have today.)

You need to look carefully into the question of what gives a government legitimacy. You may be surprised… (I’ll give you a clue: How many mechanisms are there in law by which you may give your consent? There’s just one…)

In our society, you are denied the right to own anything at all. Legally speaking. You own nothing, you merely have ‘legal title’ to *use* it. That includes your house, car, children, and your own body.This is how the legal system works. If you don’t believe me, please check.

In order to use any of these things – such as your alimentary tract, for example, – you have to pay a fee of usury to the government – such as tax on food.

Of course, in all of these cases the ownership was not legitimate. It’s a criminal act of some sort. Hope that clarifies it.

I am brand new to this blog (just signed up today). I signed up after reading an article linked to this site, “How Money Power Spawns Libertarianism”. I have sense read a few articles -all very compeling. However, I do have one reservation -your response to Dark Knight, is the tone of your comment indicative of what this site has to offer (or perhaps you took the bait)?

Usury is really the taking of somebody else’s substance. It is unearned income in the form of rents. Rents are costs above the real cost of production. Usury is unequal contracts, and not all contracts are in money. Monetary usury is a subset of rents, and is the most pernicious as it is an invisible hand.

For example, a house loan of 100K may cost 300K over time. The contract is unequal because the banker did virtually nothing to create the loan. Also, the loan is front loaded to pay the interest in the first few years, thus lowering the banker’s risk. Therefore the contract is usurious in many ways, the collection of interest, and the front loading of said interest, and also banker socializing his risk onto the population at large (if he gets into trouble he wants to be bailed out)..

Usury can also be hidden in prices. For example, when illegal immigrant Maria is cleaning your house and Lupe is mowing your lawn, you get a low cost – the price is low. However, Maria and Lupe use the emergency room at the hospital, have many kids (hence high school costs), etc. So, the real cost of production is not reflected in the lawnmower price. Those that benefit from Maria and Lupe are taking rents on the population at large – a form of usury.

Capitalism does a poor job at making and arbitrating contracts, and those that create and control Capital lie about its nature in order to take usurious rents.

Hi Ross,
You say : “Usury is really the taking of somebody else’s substance. It is unearned income in the form of rents.”
This simply is not true. It may be the moral equivalent of “the taking of somebody else’s substance”
It may be:immoral to take “unearned income in the form of rents.” (although it can be argued that it is the charge for accepting the risk that the amount may not be paid back)
By conflating words and concepts, no matter how “just” and “worthy” your arguments may be, you are undermining the basis of your position.
Stick to real meanings of real words and explain yourself and your position in terms of English.
As I said to Tim above:
You cannot make up English to suit yourself or your agenda.
Not unless you are Humpty Dumpty. ““When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.””

As I remember some of the ancient arguments, I believe on of those levied against usury was that it was BOTH the charging FOR the thing, plus charging for the USE of that thing. Or as it says on Wiki:

“The first of the scholastic Christian theologians, Saint Anselm of Canterbury, led the shift in thought that labeled charging interest the same as theft. Previously usury had been seen as a lack of charity.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the leading scholastic theologian of the Roman Catholic Church, argued charging of interest is wrong because it amounts to “double charging”, charging for both the thing and the use of the thing. Aquinas said this would be morally wrong in the same way as if one sold a bottle of wine, charged for the bottle of wine, and then charged for the person using the wine to actually drink it.”

“St. Thomas Aquinas, the leading scholastic theologian of the Roman Catholic Church, argued charging of interest is wrong because it amounts to “double charging”, charging for both the thing and the use of the thing. Aquinas said this would be morally wrong in the same way as if one sold a bottle of wine, charged for the bottle of wine, and then charged for the person using the wine to actually drink it.” (Wiki)

To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice….

Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethics v, Polit. i) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange: and consequently the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or alienation whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as man is bound to restore ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury….

It is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another’s need.”

To repeat “unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury:”

The wine metaphor is just that, a metaphor.

I can compare a mouse to an elephant in that they both have four legs, but that does not equate a mouse with an elephant.

The unnatural coupling of the two functions grants demand, backed by money, an undue advantage over supply, backed by no more than the ravages of time, passing fashion, woodworm, dampness, fungi, rodents, thieves and what have you.

The undue advantage is embodied in a tribute that supply is obliged to pay to demand. Either supply lowers prices to the level imposed by demand, or pays interest to get a loan of money. Gesell identifies usury with this tribute, and not with theories of “fecundity,” “productivity,” “profit,” “missed gain,” “money that works,” “excess interest,” or “exploitation.” Usury is a form of power. From this primary imposition it gets transferred to everything that demand and supply exchange, from capital to consumer goods.

My addition: Usury is embedded in unequal contracts, and therefore is a rent category. Granted, its the mother of all rents due to money’s pervasiveness.. Money settles debt and credit contracts in lieu of goods.

A good settling a goods contract can have equal “rot, fecundity, productivity” and hence the contract is equal. But, money’s intangible ledger accounting nature, or mismatched non rotting metal nature, is automatically usurious. Looking deeper, and at aspects the ancients didn’t notice, usury is taken on volume, velocity, and also type; where type is exchanges or swaps..

So, how come we modern humans must quote the ancients in order to give our words weight? Curious animals – us. Maybe we see a little further because we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Best site, that follows my belief on the monetary issue. But I warn you, I don’t like the Abrahamic faiths and believe they are a front of the Mongrol Zoroastrians who destroyed our native religion 1700 years ago………but never the less……

Libertarians are the modern day commies. Have to be. They spread a dialect and mumble anything to make them look good. Like they talk about “centralization”, but capital by its nature is centralization. They want to destroy the nation state and turn it into a market state like in Rollerball. Don’t trust them, they are demons. The Rothschilds did try to split the US up, because you can’t control huge centalizations, even the Soviet could not and branched out, “name”. Get that through your head. They wanted a industrial empire up north, a farmer empire down south and into the Americas as a whole. Libertarians are enraged by the truth and their khazar traditions. Marx was influenced by Ricardo. Keynes by Smith/Mills. They seek the destruction of America and the overthrow of the Constitution.

‘Psychopaths at the very top of this power pyramid will only allow like minded psychopaths into their inner club sanctum. This moral betrayal by those wielding the most power and control on earth must be stopped. Since they are too sick in their deviant pathology to ever change their evil ways on their own, it is left up to us who are guided by a common moral compass to courageously step up and hold these psychopaths accountable for their crimes against humanity. This can only be achieved with the distinct advantage that as just 1% of the total population, the psychopaths and oligarchs are overwhelmingly outnumbered by those of us 99% who are committed to doing what is right in making a positive difference on this earth plane before all is lost.”

————–
Taking rents and consuming a peoples substance, which includes monetary usury, is the dominant method that funds pyramid control by psychopaths. The pyramid can be a hidden money system, as in the West – with a benign “democratic” looking face. Or it can be a religion used as a cover for rent seeking, etc. It’s difficult to peer past the curtain, because psychopaths are so good at creating a smokescreen and covering their evil tracks.

Any religion that codifies psychopathic behavior or government systems that encourages psychopathic enthroned top down control is illegitimate. Legitimate governments and religions are there to protect the innocent, not become nests for psychopaths and evil.

Stop trying to link Jewish perfidy and deception with free market capitalism.
You would be better off linking : “communism (which was created, funded and promulgated by Jews) is Jewish supremacism”.
Hey Americans, want to hurt the Jewish usurers that you despise? Stop getting so deep into debt!

There are no free markets in Capitalism Dave: it’s all one big cartel.

If you want free enterprise (not the same thing as ‘free markets’, which can never exist), then you need abundant money and no usury, otherwise the holders of money will decide what will be marketed and not, not the producers.

It is impossible not to go in debt, because every dollar in circulation is a debt. There is not enough money to pay off interest plus debt and that’s why the growth of debt is guaranteed.

In short: stop blaming the victims (debtors, Americans) and start analyzing the problem.

You could say “communism” is the final stage of capitalist monopolization. Marx was heavily influenced by Ricardo(the real “father of the Austrian movement).

I think the problem I see in white society is, they have completely been taken away by right-hegelian dialectics. They simple do not understand this Zoroastrian “duelism” has truths on “both sides”. This was a problem 100 years ago with whites and left-hegelian dialects when they joined marxist groups. Dave is a great example of a probably white man that has been corrupted and needs to free himself.

I was a “right winger” and part of the ohio “militia/patriot” in the 1990’s. HEAVY Rothschild involvement. They sell the poor saps a line and they eat it up.

Whites were the “Lucifer” in the semitic creation tales learned from Zoroaster. We spread the “pagan”(pre-science) religion globally around the world and raised civilization from “Gods” hate. We taught the Egyptians every thing they knew. Buddha, Tao, South American, Sumerian ete ete ete “Gods” were white. For a Christian identist like myself, this was very hard to take. But it also explains the attraction to “Christ myth” whites had and how they became corrupted by the Gnostic rebellion against YNWH. Christ imo, never historically existed. It was the Zoroastrian cults who spread these tales to destroy the white tribes, nature Gods, with this duelism. “Christ” promoted globalism and race mixing.

The white race is in massive decline, frankly due to right-hegelians at this time. Right Hegelians will kill us because their economics will enslave the white race no matter how many “darkies” they would kill in “example”. Then the Jew will come from behind the cloth and take usury from the tribes, laughing at the debased, downtrodden losers we have become.

Why not blame the “victims”? The system is corrupt and beyond the scope of any “victim” to ever fix. For a “victim” to willingly go out and “buy” a $50,000 new car and assume all that that entails- Interest, high full coverage Insurance, sales tax, registration fees and a base price of $50,000 is insanity. At the end of the day, that $50,000 car does the same thing as any $3,000 car that you can find on Craig’s List in “Amerika” all day long. And that is get you from point A to point B. But that “victim” has been trained, conditioned indoctrinated from birth to think that he should buy a new car to please his envious neighbors, the woman he is trying to get with, and society as a whole.

No “victim” here just a person that does not or will not think critically. The same corrupt system that supports Usury, supports the fallacy that you should buy a new car.

Fixing the corrupt banking system on the macro level by the common man is not reality. Understanding the corrupt system and acting individually on the micro level is within the reach of all. We are all “victims” of this system but some are much more so due to their indoctrination and ignorance.

Of course, people make bad choices, there is no doubt. And everybody does best to wisen up and limit the damage they can do to you.
But even if you have zero debts, 40% of your disposable income is lost to Usury…..passed on in prices.

You are an interest-slave, whether you want it or not, know it or not, or believe it or not.

So, let’s get over blaming the victim: we have been hearing the rich for centuries what we were doing wrong and that it’s all our fault.

Dave has not learnt YET that there is no debt other than on computer screens – turn ’em off and the debt is gone.LOL

John Cummings has over complicated it with his Hegelian this and Hegelian that and hasn’t grasped that there is no ‘right’ anything – it’s all Bolshevik Jew Marxism. All he has to do is check out the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto and there it all is as plain as plain as can be.

The investor can have his investment share grow. The company grows and becomes more valuable and wealthy, then the shares become more valuable and wealthy. If the investor then sells his shares into the market for more money, that is his return. The market should scientifically have enough money to match goods and services production at that moment in time, hence the share’s selling into market does not have to be done at depression prices.

Note investors money was not made to grow, but it was share in enterprise that grew.

But, to expect “money” to grow is nonsense and bad logic. Money is sterile – it is human inputs in the form of labor along with earth’s gifts that make up all economics. Money is an accounting identity that conveniently divides down at the moment of transaction, and allows us to trade our output.

I cannot take two coins and rub them together to beget new coins. This notion of automatic returns – the time value hoax (especially on banker credit) is hypnosis in action. Using an example for bank credit: A bank lends credit to an entrepreneur, with the expectation that he pay back in certain time period. The lead time is 6 months for products to make the market and since entrepreneur has little savings – due to the disappearing nature of our money supply- it’s foregone that banker creditor will likely harvest the entrepreneur as the game is tilted. Products won’t make market in time, the banker will claim time value and demand his supposed credit back plus usury, then will harvest real assets in order to satisfy the growing demands of debt instrument. This is a con game in action as the banker created the credit from nothing in the form of keyboard entries. He made sure his position was secured by socializing his risk and making sure he could grab assets in the event venture fails. Creditor banker wins no matter what. That is time value hoax.

Now, lets suppose the money supply has 40% floating money (not bank credit) and hence a good portion ends up as people’s savings. Those savings are on-lent as loans with risk in the venture. If the venture fails, creditor fails. If the venture gains, creditor gains. In this case, creditor is a person who is using money not bank credit. In no case is the money asked to grow, only the venture is asked to grow, and the venture can only grow within the laws of nature.

So, the whole time value thing especially does not apply to bank credit, and it cannot apply to money either due to unnatural exponential growth curves as a function of usury. This idea that you loan money and get a certain compounding percentage return is outside of nature and is asking money to do the impossible. Almost all modern humans talk like this: “I invested my money, and it grew to three times!” Popycock! the money didn’t grow – the inputs from humans grew the investment, and humans used money as tool to efficiently trade their output.

The time value hoax was codified at the School of Salamanca, which at the time was peopled by marano sephardic jews. Know the lie by the liars who beget it.

You are terribly confused and confusing. ” The market should scientifically have enough money to match goods and services production at that moment in time, ”
So what happens if goods and services increase? The money supplied should increase in proportion.
Very simplixtic comment.

China’s economy is many times larger now than it was 20 years ago. Their money supply has grown accordingly. Therefore, increased goods and services match increased money volume. If you didn’t allow the money supply to grow to match increased production it is a form of deflation. This happened in the U.S. in period post Civil war to early 1900’s. The Wizard of Oz story is based on that period.

It is simple to look at prices and velocity and deduce money needs of the economy. All economies have a S shaped pattern somewhat related to the seasons. Therefore money volume must flex, and there are various ways of doing that. Today the FED flexes the amount of credit in U.S. economy with open market operations and control of interest rates.

Sometimes there is not enough space to delve into complexities, and I already use up more space than most. Thanks for thinking on this stuff and sorry if it was confusing – not meant to be.

By the way, China creates money as loans – which is Credit. They then induce industry to relocate to China with said loans. Then they forgive said loans. This changes the nature of the former credit so it no longer needs to return to the ledger for destruction. It then becomes floating money similar in nature to Civil War era Greenbacks.

In this way, China’s money supply has grown to match their economic output, and at the same time it was spent in a way that enhances productivity. The U.S. deficit spends to increase the money supply – only it is spent on unemployment and the military industrial security complex.

Thanks Ross,
This is why I do not support a “Gold” (or any other commodity based) currency. In my view money should allow for exchange of goods (value) and should aim to keep the value reasonably constant, and you cannot simply increase (or decrease) gold to match production. When excess builds up (Spain after the looting of South America) then the value of production just plummeted as the prices went up.
Fiat currency and usury automatically decrease the value of goods (and the labour involved) and thereby constantly decreases the value of “a day’s work”.
Money should be issued by a “government” or authority with the sole purpose of maintaing enough liquidity in the system to exchange such value.
The use of gold or any commodity (Land, wheat, jewelry, cattle etc) to store value is a difficult problem to solve. Even JC said “store not up riches on this earth…”
But that is what we have intellectuals for.

I’m for a fourth branch of government – a monetary authority, surrounded by Constitutional law. I also believe that money types, flow patterns, volume and velocity all should come under lawful control. Money’s true nature is a divsion of the law – not of commodities, or metal, or debt instruments. Finance matches industry and stored value, in only a very oblique way. Most of our money supply is bank credit based on FIRE (finance insurance and real estate.) How crazy is that? Take the red pill or the blue pill.

Once money starts to match industry and real labor output, then the “store” problem becomes easier to solve.

The money vs time question, i.e. temporal component of money makes most minds, including those of economic intellectuals freeze up. Add in a big dose of confusion (like not agreeing on what money is) and equating “swaps” as the same types, etc. and we cannot move forward to temporal/time problems and how to store wealth. The math doesn’t even work because accounting is numbers; often we are adding unlike types, meaning adding oranges and apples.

Then we add in a dose of economists not understanding rents, or government officals not taxing properly – and we can see it is a big mess. Maybe because I’m an engineer I see it differently, as a flow problem with variables and constants. Basically, I cannot even talk to some economists – I’ve tried. They are our supposed intellectuals, but most of them are bought off or they had to compromise to prevailing (wrong) orthodoxy to get a university degree.

This usury funded mind control over university economic departments and more flows into usurping government, means our current reality is based on falsehoods.

The flow paths are there to see if one looks – the USURY flows through your double entry ledger, and then passes on to the banker. Usury math even front loads the interest (a temporal issue). Banker spends some his gains on payroll and buildings and savings accounts, but the rest paretos into the system and aggegates to top of pyramid.

“Calvinist thought was also infected by the typically Jewish notion that wealth is a sign of God’s favor.“

Christians are a subset of Jews in my way of thinking. So it doesn’t surprise me that Calvinism or Mormonism have abandoned the Hellenistic philosophy that is SUPPOSED to be within Judeo-Christianity. I am well aware of the pseudo-arguments that are possible with God arguments. And there’s any number of fallacious conclusions you can reach if you just insert ‘God’ into the equation. God is Just and Omnipotent, by definition. Ergo, He knows who will make it to Heaven. And Ergo, he will not mistreat those who are so destined for Heaven. So, ‘obviously’, you can tell who is going to make it into Heaven by how God is treating them! Viola! That’s Calvinism in a nutshell! And it’s just the sort of thinking you’d expect to come from a system that worships Mammon.

Prior to Amsterdam stock exchange “credit” and usury capitalism, Jewish money power relied on the East West Mechanism, control of trade routes, usury via pawn operations, and money power conferred as special legal privilege by Kings.

During the Byzantine and Hellenic period and then on toward Babylon, money power was a privilege first of priest/kings who had some fealty to their population. Later, when gold and silver by weight and then by coins was used to do accounting, the priest kings went international as their new tangible token floated in a money supply. They were the progenitors of the pharisees.

This accounting nature of money was confused between intangible and tangible. What was on the ledger (intangible numbers) were conflated to say they were the same as tangible metals – a lie. Then interest/usury was added on to make ledger debt claims grow against the tangible. You cannot pay as there is not enough physical silver, then the debt claims take your life in recompense. What wonderful Godlike powers now held by the false priest kings.

Debt instruments are always claims against money. Money satisfies debt. Floating money already in the supply can vector into the debt instrument and then reflux out to be respent. Hypothecation debt instruments create credit/debt money and this type of money, when returned to the debt instrument vanishes from existence. Shhhh don’t tell the money masters you are on to their games. They make the money unit have different properties then make false claims about its nature. You Goyim are just stupid animals to be hosted and parasitized, and if you are too smart – to be killed.

Hypothecation debt instruments, like a mortgage or a house loan, creates new money. This type of credit is a signature loan. You become debtor and the banker magically becomes creditor, then on-sells your signature debt instrument. For example, your mortgage is on-sold and may follow a path away from said banker hypothecation credit created as a mirror. Credit money created by the mortgage then enters the money supply and is recalled by you to extinguish at loan paydown rate.

So, in Amersterdaaammmn, all the modern credit mechanisms and stock exchange puts/calls etc. were created. Usury hypothecation allows debt claims to create money. Why Amsterdam? Jews were not allowed to be actors in the State Bank of Amsterdam, created in July of 1609. This bank was set up not to loan bank credit, but to prevent unscrupulous money changers ruling the exchanges. No interest was paid at this bank, nor were overdrafts or loans made. The bank did not discount bills and then send them on for collection. The Bank worked with existing money.

To be clear, I am not hostile to mutual credit. In mutual credit both creditor and debtor mutually holds claims against each other, and the money created does not leave the system – thus claims can be extinguished. To restate: credits and debts can be extinguished as the debt instrument and its money can find each other and match perfectly. Therefore mutual credit is non usurious.

In our hypothecation banker credit system, money is created by a banker intermediary who has illegally inserted himself between creditor and debtor, and he then takes rents on the population by forcing contraction in the money supply (our banker system design predicates its output as inflation/depression bubbles). Extraction and harvesting real wealth occurs when the debt instrument demands payment at depression prices. There is scarce money in the supply to pay the claims on money i.e. debt instruments, then fine they take your property – so a new debt cycle can begin; hence the saw tooth shape of illuminist banker credit economies.

All of the stock market mechanisms we have today were created by about 700 free brokers in the Amsterdam exchange. There were 375 sworn brokers, who were Christians and appointed by the State. Another 20 Jews were sworn and appointed. The 700 Jewish unsworn, or Free Brokers, were wild and not proscribed by law. They invented all kinds of mayhem that exists to today, such as broker abuse of client orders, behind the scenes manipulation of prices, front running, fictional accounting, and using wedge faults in the market mechanism to fleece unwitting sheeple. After all, if you are above the people, and superior, then you are authorized to take rents. God commands it as your special right.

Ducatoon’s were indexed futures to be settled in money and not commodities, a mismatch in type typical of money power agent hypnosis in action. Note that mismatch of type is similar to pretending that intangible ledger money is the same as tangible. Let’s cast our magic wand and confuse the minds of trusting sheeple by lying about the nature of our money and rent games.

By the 18 Century, Jews had come to dominate the broker’s guild. Portuguese Jewry had completely given up on being merchants in order to take up gambling on the stock market – probably with inside information using parasitic rents just described; this behavior is endemic to a tribe that works against society as an in-group. They are interested in their tribe and hide behind claims of “international” good will. Don’t buy it.

For man to evolve he needs his better nature to be allowed to come forth – that means not being parasitized and abused by our worst nature, Jewish or otherwise. A people cannot evolve to their better nature if they are hosted, parasitized, divided, and their minds occluded with falsehoods.

Excellent piece. One tiny factoid that I think you could have added, though… The Jews read the anti-usury passages in the Holy Book as only applying to others in their tribe. So a Jew can lend at interest all he likes to non-Jews. That’s hypocrisy in my book. But that’s because I see all people as One. They, of course, do not.

Indeed. I can still remember the day I opened my first checking account. I was asked whether I wanted an interest-bearing checking account, or one that didn’t bear interest. I asked the lady “Why would anyone choose not to earn interest?” To which the lady responded “I don’t know, but we have a lot of Muslim customers who do so.”

Of course, she should have told me that regulations at the time prevented them from gambling with my deposits if I chose not to earn interest. Of course, with Glass Steagall repealed, such distinctions aren’t made anymore.

I don’t think it’s at all the same, for the reasons I hinted at. You’re essentially saying that the Muslims charge more for the product instead of using the ‘magic’ of compound interest. And that because they charge a higher price, it’s somehow the same. It’s not the same. Those banks aren’t playing the too big to fail game, which is basically a game of privatizing profits, and socializing losses.

There is no difference to man in street buying a house. He still must pay it off in 30 years instead of 10, because the rentier charges added over the course of the loan make up perfectly for the lack of interest nominally not assessed. Banks don’t fail like they do in the Western world because they don’t speculate in derivatives.

Rubbish PM, you are saying that there is no difference between usury and commerce.
Be very certain that Islamic banking is not Usury and that even in Islamic countries you can find both Islamic banks and western banks, but you will not find a practising Muslim owning or participating in a western bank.
Of course there are Muslims who say one thing and then do another, much like some Christians and Jews.

Muslims charge interest, just not up front like western banks do. They assess rentier charges. You are still paying back your loans at the same usurious rates, you just somehow magically feel better about it. Islam and the Talmud say it is okay to lie, cheat or murder people outside their religion. That’s reality.

You might want to take a look at the “verse of the sword” again in the Koran. You might also want to refresh you memory with sharia law. As an expert on Islam you already knew this, you just forgot, right?

What has the verse of the sword have to do with ” lie, cheat or murder people””, you are totally ignorant, they were at war with the pagans of Mecca at the time! (yet they gave them 4 months to leave, or to deny Paganism or to become Muslims)
What the **** has Sharia got to do with ” lie, cheat or murder people””?
Please take your stupidity, your bigotry and your hatred somewhere else, you are a disgrace, You have murdered enough innocents, no Muslim would say “Kill them all God will know his own”

9:6 Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. (Those who don’t submit will be killed. See previous verse.)

9:7-9 Don’t make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted.

9:11 Treat converts to Islam well, but kill those who refuse to convert (see 9:5).

9:12-14 Fight the disbelievers! Allah is on your side; he will give you victory.

9:23 Don’t make friends with your disbelieving family members. Those who do so are wrong-doers.

9:29 Fight against Christians and Jews “until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”

9:33 The “Religion of Truth” (Islam) must prevail, by force if necessary, over all other religions.

9:41 Fight for Allah with your wealth and whatever weapons are available to you.

9:42 Those who refuse to fight for Allah (claiming they are unable) are liars who have destroyed their souls.

9:73 Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all going to hell anyway.

9:81-83 Those who refuse to give their wealth and lives to Allah will face the fire of hell.

9:85 Those who refuse to fight for Allah will be treated (along with their children) as unbelievers.

9:111 Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed. Allah will reward them for it.

9:123 Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you.

Muhammad claimed that God gave him a “revelation” allowing him to lie and break his word, i.e. the truces, stated in 9:1: “A declaration of immunity from God and His apostle to the idolaters with whom you have made agreements”, and described as “A discharge came down, permitting the breaking of the agreement between the apostle and the polytheists”

The Quran Sura 9 (Usually it is called “Repentance”, in Arabic (Al-Tawbah), or “The Ultimatum” or “Release” (Bara’ah).) was written in relation to the a war against Idolators i.e. those who worshipped Idols – Pagans. took place after the Peace Treaty of HudaibiyahIt The clans involved had broken the treaty.
They had set out to reclaim Mecca and to annihilate the followers of Mohammed.
These were enemies who had warred with Islam. And yet they were given the opportunity to make peace and return to the treaty.
The war included allies of the Pagans, jewish clans whose influence and revenues had declined. They were required to pay taxes, in place of Zakat.
But you will carry on spouting your lies and mistruths. You have plenty of mindless followers, but no facts.
The word “al-Taqiyya”literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.”A one-word translation would be “Dissimulation.” It refers only to the statements of faith and belief and permits a Muslim to deny his faith under torture and threat of death. You have been deliberately misleading or you are in error.
With regard to Sharia, you deliberately lie.
“Dhimma allows rights of residence in return for jizyah – tax collected from non-Muslims. According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions. They were excused or excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, did not enjoy certain political rights reserved for Muslims, and were subject to payment of a special tax (jizyah), but were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation
Under sharia law, dhimmi status was originally applied to Jews, Christians, and Sabians. This status later came to be applied to Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, Hindus and Buddhists.[5][6] Eventually, the Hanafi, the largest school of Islamic legal thought, applied this term to all non-Muslims living in Islamic lands outside the sacred area surrounding Mecca, in modern-day Saudi Arabia”
Having lived in a Muslim country for 3 years I can confirm that all rights were respected, (including Alcohol and Pork) and no coercion was with regard to religious observance was ever made.
Please take your stupidity, your bigotry and your hatred somewhere else, you are a disgrace, You have murdered enough innocents, no Muslim would say “Kill them all God will know his own”

Your apologetics cannot refute quotes from the Koran. The principle of abrogation states that earlier passages take precedence over the latter. As to your experiences, they are unique and are everywhere contradicted by persecution of Christians, women, girls, gays, apostates, and non muslims everywhere. The goal of Islam global caliphate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OjoWeVwM10

The principle of abrogation means that what comes later abrogates what came earlier. Medina law abrogates Mecca. Medina violence abrogates Mecca peace. What comes before is superseded (abrogated) by what comes later. .

The bible is inverse, Old testament violence is (superseded) abrogated by New testament peace.

Mecca was an entrepot city controlled by Jews on the EAST/WEST caravan routes. Jewish inputs, especially control of money via parasitic rents on the exchange rates, no doubt influenced Islam – and the hostility Islam shows to Jews is a function of host trying to shake off a parasite.

Law of abrogation is a real problem for Islam and the world, as converts are attracted to Mecca peace and later become inducted into post Medina ideology.

The political nature of Jewish usury capitalism was exposed when Baruch Spinoza’s works were not published. We see this pattern again and again, where the press and means of communication are bought out, perverted and hosted. This is the action of a parasite that needs to control the brain in order to take rents.

Spinoza was a great philosopher and a member of the Jewish community. He was a former Talmudic student of Manasseh and a member of Amsterdam’s Jewish community. Spinoza rejected the fundamental dogmas of their religion – so the Jewish community offered him a pension of 1,000 Florins per year if would publicly proclaim and conform to Jewish rules of life. Spinoza refused to compromise, and hence he was formally and publicly cursed, then excommunicated in 1656. Amsterdam’s Christians accepted him, but Spinoza died soon thereafter at the age of 35. Murdered perhaps?

The fundamental nature of Amsterdam’s Jewish money power, where unearned rents (stealing from the public) pareto to the top of a pyramid. These usury flows fund Satanic elites, and this mechanism can be seen in the Spinoza episode.

Satanic, no, they are Luciferians, secular humanists. They care about the “here and now” and do not believe in any “god”. Lucifer, whom they worship, is not a “being” or “entity” (in their way of thinking) but a philosophy. They worship knowledge and power and believe they will one day become gods. In order to attain rule over the world and immortality, over 92% of humanity must be wiped off of the face of the earth.

I think you are just quibbling over names that all point to the same reality. The new age is notorious for putting a smiley, benign face on satan with various names and manifestations. They all lead you in the same direction of renouncing God with the lie that you can become god with acquisition of secret knowledge. Usury is highest form of this gnosis and is an expression black magick.

But also to with technological advances sponsored by tax dollars etc for the ultra wealthy to create transhumanism if you will. To create perfect that which the creator made imperfect. The human is the 3rd Temple of Solomon?

Go to http://www.answering-christianity.com and find topics there related to Usury (Oops, Jewsury)…. . Ghadafi of Libya, one of the promoters of “clean money vs the usury” was butchered by the Satanic NATO). tjoaginsing (Googleable)

Anthony, being that you’ve made up this “estimation” the calculation is of no avail.

Like Name789 used to mention; if yourself or those which you advocate did any creditable research, all you people wouldn’t need to keep falsifying history. Whether it be Bill Still, G. Edward Griffin or Ellen Brown, none of you hold any remains of integrity.

Morton estimated 1850 to be $6bn (UK)
Documented value 1849 600mn Francs.(France only)
1 dollar now is worth (has the buying power of) about what 4 cents was worth in 1913, due to inflation over the last century according to republican congressman Ron Paul. So $6 billion in 1913 would be equivalent to more than $150 billion today. Discounting the difference between 1850 and 1913.
However, 1815 alone, the Rothschilds provided £9.8 million ( £6.58 billion or US$10.1 billion in todays values) to just British government, then selling the bonds on the crest of a short bounce in the market in 1817 for a 40% profit.
By the end of the century, the family owned, or had built, at the lowest estimates, over 41 palaces, of a scale and luxury perhaps unparalleled even by the richest royal families. The soon to be British Prime Minister Lloyd George claimed, in 1909, that Lord Nathan Rothschild was the most powerful man in Britain (and Britain owned the empire).
So what you can estimate is that by using usury, they have maintained the purchasing power of their money.

The American Free Press,and the UGLY TRUTH.Com;with brilliant author Michael Collins Piper ,calculates that the Rothchilds,worth is today 700 Trillion. They control 57 & Of The US Federal Reserve,since 1913 (See:THE END OF SOVEREIGN AMERICA:Real Jew News.Com) and every Central Bank,including the City Of London Banking Center/IMF.International bank Of Settlements. Everyone;individual or nation who comes against them is targeted for destruction. They rule by the confines the LEFT/RIGHT wings of the same prison. See THE NATIONALIST SOLUTION TO MONEY:Real Jew News.Com. Gottleib Feder.

Amersterdam’s usury/financial capitalism funded factional fighting in Morocco. Amsterdam Jewish merchants supplied both sides in the battle. They also funded both sides in England’s civil wars. So, we see a connection between merchants and banking (companies) that exist to today. Amsterdam merchants traded with the enemy, financed the enemy, and withheld supplies from Holland, except at usurious prices. This aspect of capitalism gives financial interests a motive to foment war.

In 1609 there were 200 Sephardic Jews in Amsterdam. In 1630 1000 Sephardics out of 115,000 total population. The growth of the Sephardic continue until 1674 when Ashkenazi join them. By then 2500 Sephardic and 5000 Ashenazi are in Amsterdam. Then by 1743 3K Sephardic and 10K Ashkenazi; by 1780 3K Sephardic and 19K Ashkenazi. Total population in 1780= 217K.

One Jewish act was to re-sell loot from Pirated ships. They were adept at commingling the booty with other merchandise. Often the loot would go to Portuguese ports as a form of laundering.

The Portuguese connection cannot be overstated. Vasco de Gama’s expedition around Cape of Good Hope created the “Southern Route.” This transferred the East/West Gold/Silver exchange rate mechanisms to the Portuguese. In other words, Silver that normally moved from West to India overland, now moved by Portuguese shipping. Jews owned or controlled many of entrepot cities to take the exchange rate difference between the metals. Jewish control of this mechanism no doubt infuriated Mohammed, a merchant in one of these entrepot cities.

East West mechanism is a top secret of Jewish monetary success over the centuries, which includes controlling overland caravan routes and shipping trade in the Mediterranean. Think of it as a secretive gang working for themselves against the better interests of humanity. Plentiful silver from the West would trade for plentiful Gold in India. The Caravans would ostensibly move spices, but were also laden with precious metals. Wealth would double or triple due to metal exchange rate differences – usurious rents thus taken on laboring populations.

Jewish in-group behavior is fueled by money power and self-aggrandized by Tikkun olam and now illuminist Talmudic supremacy.

Sephardic Jews FOLLOWED the Portuguese to Holland and Amersterdaaaamn. They followed their former east west trade to its new city. Vasco De Gama’s expedition was in 1492 and it took about 100 years for the Jewish migration to be felt. Also many Marano Sephardic Jews were in Portugal after being expelled by Spain.

Rabbi Manasseh was a Jewish Bible printer (1627) who was in league with Oliver Cromwell. The Jewish press of Joseph Athias is estimated to have printed a million English bibles. These geopolitical machinations were to undermine English Catholicism and insert Calvinism. Calvanism has old testament Jewish emphasis and is friendly to usury. England’s Catholicism and Talley stick money system was targeted. It was full spectrum war using merchants, money agents, the press, and false religion as a shield. This climbing with cleats onto the face of humanity in order to gain unearned rents is not “god like” but instead satanic.

The money system is the tap root that funds illuminist satanic behavior. Stop funding our own dispossession.

ross – I find your comments very educational; do you teach? One question though – You make a distinction between tangible and intangible money, and this I believe is a false one; Money is either token money or credit money…however all money is ‘intangible’ since it is not real wealth, rather a unit of ‘potential wealth; this potential becomes actual at the point of a purchase. No matter what form (credit or token) it is intangible in the sense that it is ‘potential’ – be it a ledger entry (which is tangible to the eye or token…which is tangible to the eye and touch (unless you believe that money must be a commodity, or actual piece of wealth….which is an absurdity). So no matter what the form of ‘currency’ – blip or token, usurizing it creates an impossible situation for society.

I teach my friends. I think and teach what I learn. Money is an accounting identity. The numbers are opaque. People add them as like quantities, but they are not. The identities are path, volume, velocity, type and there is also a temporal dimension. So, people get caught up in semantics and argue past each other rather than defining the system on hand.

Ledger entries are simply numbers in a clay tablet, or a computer. Their path is then different that tangible form. Tangible form can be held in volume, while intangible can have unlimited volume. When man does swaps (for example debt instruments for money) they are often unlike, in the same way that different types of monies are unlike and have different effects.

Credit money, as in today’s bank money returns to the ledger for destruction. Floating money stays in the supply and jumps from transaction to transaction – it used to be called currency. Sometimes called base money. Note the different paths, different form, and different behaviors. Economists do not recognize these facts, and therefore in many cases they may be dismissed as sophomoric.

Tokens are not money. Money is a bearer instrument that says pay to the bearer upon demand. Money has a large path or circuit. Tokens are more narrow and apply to a small circuit. Tokens are usually something physical that says so much credit must be paid back. The token is a device that helps the human to not have to remember. The credit to be paid back is usually a good. Before money, humans used tokens and tallys when they couldn’t remember who they owed what to.

Tokens are physical representations of a tally. Tallys are marks on a ledger or stick that represent who is creditor and debtor and who owes who what. They are not money. Money satisfies debt contracts at the moment of transaction. Again, tokens and talleys describe the good or credit (labor?) to be paid back, usually at some point in the future.

Tallys or tokens can become money when the law changes to allow a bigger circuit. For example, when the King issued a talley stick good for taxes, it is no longer represents a goods debt payable by one individual. The debt representation by this Talley spreads across the whole of society due to the fact that everybody owes taxes, and hence the unit itself morphs in form and becomes money. Money satisfies debt, is a bearer instrument, and usually has a wide circuit or high acceptance Money is a division of the law, and hence satisfies legal debt/credit contracts.

The highest form of money is not payable in something else. For example, debt free money is issued into money supply, and it simply exists as numbers relative to the goods production of society. Therefore, it is a legal device and its volume relates to goods/services. The people simply agree to use it as a social construct.

A debt instrument that creates money e.g. mortgage, is a mirror that allows credit money to come into being. This credit can be thought of as an inverse of the debt, a mirror image twisted at 180 degrees. The recall rate forces a velocity vector. This money is a division of a debt contract, but gets its force by legal sanction and the willingness of a hypothecation victim to sign away his credit rights. The legal sanction of government allows this credit money to go into the supply where it then has volume relative to goods/services. In effect, finance hijacks the social credit of society to create money, and the money they create is really on signature authority of debtor. Banker can then on-sell the debt instrument signature into the market, a form of enslavement of individuals. Sending debt instruments (Mortgage Backed Securities) outside of the legal confines of a country are an abrogation of good design. The credit money cannot find its debt instrument and is also outside the reach of law.

Gold or silver money is a division of metal, also gets an imprimateur of the state, and may also be the basis on which credit rides. This metal money cannot flex to the volume needs of an economy, and it is international …meaning that the legal basis necessary for good money is abrogated when this metal leaves the legal borders of a country. Worse, it usually has some sort of paper riding on top in 10:1 ratio, therefore loosing even a little causes an leverage effect on money supply. The paper riding on top was supposedly payable in metal, but that was always a lie. Gold or silver was currency – it was not payable in something else, therefore it was money – but not an ideal form.

Just when one think’s they’ve begun to understand the world’s history and how historical events shape the world we live in today…

An article like this brings everything into perspective even better…

Bravo!!!

I’ve come to realize that recent history has been written with many events purposely left out… Half truths I would say..

Articles like this just slowly chip away at the mountain of half truths that have been written, hopefully someday (for the sake of future generations) the mountain of half truths will collapse and people will experience true freedom and peace…

Anytime I am faced with a large task that seems insurmountable I say to myself –

“We have all seen that Rothschild was worth 50 billion in 1850.” Source?

Without providing references; these articles are quite lacking. I find each one linking back to “another” and “another” often following the same format. This also mirrors your views on so-called “monetary reform” advocating mutually exclusive and contradictory works. No principles.

No, I don’t link to such a thing. If you write an overview article like this, you’d have to link to 80 articles and it just messes up readability. I do link to some of my own articles, because certain ingredients I’ve added to the wider debate. But historically speaking, the facts discussed in this article are pretty much incontroversial. You can read a reasonable article about Jewish negiotiations with Cromwell on Wiki, for instance, although it is of course sanitized concerning Jewish backing of Cromwell.

It’s more a matter of how we interpret history and how we look at the underlying theme.

Though I would not be concerned about the white race disappearing. The elite actually favor the white race, though it will become rarer – maybe in a way reserving it for themselves. Besides – mankind probably can already genetically engineer the perfect white specimen.

Either way – great job at making the connection clear between CAPITALism and usury as the first is so often connected to free enterprise, free markets, productivity and even freedom itself – while in fact it serves usurous capital from the get-go.

To those Austrians who say that usury is simply the “time value of money,” and that a free market must permit it, ask them, what is free market about banks being given the government privilege of issuing credit tied to the nation’s money supply? They’ll have to admit that’s not free market, but what is free market, by extension, is governments banning usury on credit issued with the privilege of being tied to the nation’s money supply, because in that case, banks retain the freedom to issue their own credit free of such regulations.

Wow..nice article ..But..you Lost me when you went from Jackson ..mentioning the Whigs and Lincoln Didn’t the US economy flourish (yes some ups and downs) and have great economic growth without a central bank..? And wasn’t Lincoln and his Greenback Currency…part of his demise? ?

The Rothchilds/British Empire backed the South. They were behind the slave trade,and wanted its cotton,for Great Britain’s Textile Mills. The Norths growing industry was of concern to them as well. Their agent inside the Confederacy was Secretary Of State Judah Benjamen. “I have two enemies”:Lincoln said:The Souths Armies in front of me,and the bankers behind me”. Rothchild enemy Czar Alexander sent his fleet to the Pacific,and Atlantic off US Shores to ward of any British attempt to intervene late in the Civil War. Lincolns Party:The Republicans(Not Whigs) did not back any Central Bank ,but set up a system of tariffs to keep out British Empire Goods out(Caused US Manufacturing to grow),which continued ,into the early 29th Century(They became the manufacturing party/dominant ) -Not until Woodrow Wilson,backed by International Finance,in a rigged three man race:(1912) did the Federal Reserve/Central Bank-go through in 1913. WW1,WW2,Cold War,NWO ensued.

This I believe is the truth regarding the civil war in America. Webster Tarpley elaborates upon the invaluable assistance that Czar Alexander gave Lincoln with their fleets here : http://www.c-span.org/video/?315198-1/russias-participation-us-civil-war Tarpley isn’t always reliable, as evidenced by his recent denial of the Ukrainian Holodomor, but his sources are good in this lecture.

Only when individuals screw together the necessary courage to investigate the jewish question with a clear mind will folks awaken to the reality of this world, shaped and mended as it is by the so-called tribe. Natasha still lives in the Hollywood/Wall Street/K Street fantasyland.

But from my research “the tribe” isn’t the only player. I find it interesting that elite Jewry is so easily identifiable as the cause of most of the world’s ills. Think about this, if you were planning to take control of the world through finance, to bring in a global totalitarian socialist system (New World Order) wouldn’t you cover up your involvement to the best of your ability? Yet the Jews are easily identified all over the world. Many believe they are at the top of the pyramid.

I find this all very suspicious. They play their role well but I have a difficult time accepting they are the top of the pyramid.

Feder was very much on the right track and his anti banker/Usury agitation was instrumental in getting Hitler to power. But when he did, he sidelined Feder and put Schacht in charge, who was a typical money power agent. He made sure banker control of the economy through usurious fractional reserve banking continued unabated in the third Reich.

Where could I read more about Feder’s plan? Where could I find information about a realistic plan in a modern economy today? I’m curious how someone with the power to do so would go about “killing the bank”, dismantling the current financial system, and implementing a better system without harming the innocent? And I’m looking for a soup to nuts explanation since I admit I am not an expert on the complexities of the current financial system. Thanks.

Wiki has a number of reasonable entries about Feder. There is also his booklet ‘the breaking of interest slavery’. I can also refer you to my ‘Hitler’s finances’ trilogy, the first part has some links to articles on Feder.

Here is my proposal for an interest-free credit based economy:
realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/more-on-mutual-credit/

That is very wrong. Schacht was sidelined,not Feder. Hitler removed him,and ended economic “Liberalization”,and the Gold Standard. Horace Greelly Von Schahct WAS NO WHERE to be found after 1935 ! Hitler cancelled all debts to the International Bank Of Settlements,and Nationalized the Reichbank. A system of Barter was set up,to go around the Jewish /Finance Boycott. Milo Bonds were issued to the public,and the value of labor was set up,as public works were created,as a national asset. Three Rothchild Branches were closed. The Reich economy recovered like no other in the world except nationalist Japan. RothchildAgent Bernard Baruch said:” He will not get away with this”.(Hitler) Later Rothchild transnationals were taxed for the first time. Immedietly Churchill (Rothchild Toady) was revived in Britain to agitate for war.. See GORING-David Irving. HITLERS WAR-Irving. THE NATIONALIST SOLUTION TO MONEY-Real JEW NEWS.COM. THE BAD WAR.Com. CHURCHILL AND THEJEWS:Gilbert.. Unless,this confusion is ended,about the AXIS,than we can never overcome the Zionists!

There is a whole lot more to this story Dante. I have extensively analyzed the Reich’s monetary system and it was basically the same as under Weimar, with the exception of Schacht’s MEFO bills. Hitler did not end Usury or banking and German National Debt stood at 18 billion Reichsmark, a very sizeable sum at the time. Interest was paid on this debt.

Lucifer does not need to be real in order for there to be people willing to worship him. It’s MYTH!

Lucifer is the light-bringer. So is Prometheus. They’re the same figure. Lucifer is just the Romanized/Latinized version. What did Prometheus do to piss off the gods? He gave LIGHT — FIRE — to mankind. Again — mythology…as fire and light are both metaphors for knowledge.

You interpretation depends upon the greek and roman cosmology. In Christianity there is only one God, all others are false, especially those representing satan like Prometheus. From perspective of Christianity the two are identical: Prometheus gave mankind a forbidden gift like the serpent bade Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidded tree of Knowledge in the Garden.

I understand where Jesus came from. I understand the progression of philosophical thought that culminated in the creation of the mythology. I would suggest you study Philo of Alexandria and his writings on the Logos, and then trace that progression through time — especially through the first couple hundred of years after. I would also suggest you get “Christ in Egypt” by Murdock.

I know you are not actually stating that YHVH in he old testament is advocating usury (as that is plainly evident in full context of old testament), but instead that the Jews chose to interpret that passage as an divine endorsement. However, to use usury to defend oneself against enemies of Christianity (and never to fellow Christianns or peaceful foreigners) was seen as permissible. This I believe is Michael Hoffman’s interpretation. It this your contention as well?

Why no references to the Talmud regarding Jewish usury? A rich and damning source, no?

Yes pm, indeed, Jewish sources like the Talmud, but most assuredly also the Protocols are rather forthright about the whole thing.

I think the Jews simply see Usury as their main gun. I certainly as such. We go to work to pay off the bank, not because of ‘Zionism’ or ‘Masonry’.

To be honest: I think Deutoronomy is quite outspoken about the duty of the Jews to use borrowing and lending to rule over the other nations. Don’t you think, considering the quotes in the offered link?

Personally, I no longer consider the Old Testament as part of Christianity. I cannot reconcile YHVH with the Gospels. There are certainly real spiritual nuggets in the OT, but they are more in the Prophets and Psalms, not so much in the Pentateuch, which looks like pure tribalism to me.

Answer me this: When did Yashua Messiah (The Creator) ever need to rely upon your ability to reconcile anything? Time for you to revisit and meditate on The Potter and clay arrangement which, incidently, you will find explained in both Old and New Testaments/Covenants.

This verse should help you as well re the Old Testament/Covenant:

Luke 24:27 (KJV) And beginning at Moses and all The Prophets, He expounded unto them in ALL The Scriptures the things concerning Himself. (Emphasis mine)

The main problem is, that in current translations of the OT all the different words for God or Gods (Adonai, elohim, YHVH) are mixed together in ‘Lord’.

It seems to me these days, that the stories of the OT’s pentateuch can also be interpreted as some kind of advanced alien genetically engineering Adam and Eve.

There are clear nuggets of real spirituality in the OT: the psalms, the prophets. That is where you read of people worshiping God as Spirit in private prayer.

But when nukes land on Sodom and Gomorrah, it sounds more like ancient stories of major war and confrontation on the planet and ancient civilizations or even aliens could have been a part of this.

This impression is strongly enforced by the fact that several old texts show similar themes: the veda’s, for instance, but also the sumerian clay tablets (although still nobody seems to know what they actually say).

There is also a lot of circumstantial physical evidence for this kind of thinking.

I don’t get bogged down in names for God – ever decreasing circles comes swiftly to mind LOL.

The Godhead was always two distinct Spiritual Beings who have always self-existed – The ETERNAL Elohim (the plural of Eloha) always more than one i.e. two with no beginning and no end.

Let US make MAN (not hu-mans) in OUR image and in OUR likeness.

Hence we know that monotheism (Judaism and Islam) is devil worship – one god.

Likewise – three in one and one in three is a conjuring trick of Tertullian circa 200 AD – a concept unknown to the first century Assemblies of God.

If you believe that Moses wrote the first five books – the so called Torah, as guided by the Holy Spirit, all the other writings, although with some significance provided they support what’s written in The Scriptures, are not important.

E.g. The Turks (quasi-muslims) have their own account of The Flood, but that does not negate what’s written in The Scriptures it’s just more evidence of the Truth of the Flood as recorded in the Holy Scriptures.

The bottom line is that nothing pre-dates The Garden other than The Creation itself which are literal accounts.

No nukes were involved in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah just a strange form of ultra hot sulphur that scorched the cities into a crumbling pummice. Have you seen the vids on this?

The temptations are to always complicate and hu-manise and thereby limit The Godhead or bring the Godhead down to our feeble levels of understanding. I used to do the same until I Iearnt better – all praise be to Yashua Messiah.

His proper name is “Yahushua HaMashiach” NOT “Yahshua”. That name came from the sacred name movement of the 1930’s in America. It is not “Yeshua” either, according to my studies. The English translation of “Yahushua” is Joshua. But the original Hebrew “Yahushua” properly means “Yah is Salvation” whereas the Aramaic loanword “Yeshua” simply means “salvation”, quite generic, especially when speaking of the Savior of the World.

Names are important, and understanding the differences of usage in the Scriptures change the meaning of passages. When the English translations use “Lord” or “LORD” people should study the difference in the all capital letter printing and the former. Elohim can be either singular or plural, the context is what dictates the meaning.

Far from it. You are just a right-winger who prefers the male-dominance model. As I said — anyone who thinks he can make the ineffable effable is pushing an agenda. And your agenda is not the least bit difficult to see.

Yours isn’t truth — it’s half-truth. That’s the whole point. You’re as effective at seeing as a man with 20/20 vision out of one eye, yet completely missing the other eye. You don’t understand the philosophy behind the concept of the Logos, and therefore have but an adolescent understanding of the mythology. Your icon of the Bible says much — as you have made that book unto a god. Yes, you’re an idolator in my book — using the philosophical sense of idolatry, too. You confuse the symbol with that which the symbol points to.

My query, which has never been answered, is whether the Son of God is also a god?
Now we know that God had multiple sons per Genesis 6
1Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
So therefore according to your reference work, either the son(s) of God are mortals or there are many Gods.
No wonder we are confused.

The Son of God (Yashua Messiah) was God with God who had always self-existed (no beginning and no end) before He became flesh when He then became The Son of Man or the second Adam – not a hu-man. Mankind and Hu-mankind are two different races.

“Let US make man in OUR image and in OUR likeness.” God speaking with God – a Duality Godhead, not a pagan trinity nor a monotheistic god.

The sons of God in Genesis 6 are angels and not sons in the same sense that men are. Only men can be sons of God, hence in the resurrection they will be above the angels and will judge the angels.

The Hebrew word for ‘sons’ in Genesis 6 is ‘bane’ or ‘ben’ which is really a loose word and can mean other things e.g. subject; nation; quality; condition a servant born to you etc. etc.. It therefore has a literal and/or figurative usage whereas Son as in Son of God is from the Hebrew word ‘bar’ which literally means ‘son of’ with no other meaning or no figurative meaning at all.

This is confirmed in Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

I make no claims. The Truth is never claimed and I have done nothing that is convenient. I have not changed anything, just explained the two Hebrew words involved. What is it that I have said that you do understand?

“Asherah, ancient West Semitic goddess, consort of the supreme god. Her principal epithet was probably “She Who Walks on the Sea.” She was occasionally called Elath (Elat), “the Goddess,” and may have also been called Qudshu, “Holiness.” According to texts from Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra, Syria), Asherah’s consort was El, and by him she was the mother of 70 gods. As mother goddess she was widely worshiped throughout Syria and Palestine, although she was frequently paired with Baal, who often took the place of El; as Baal’s consort, Asherah was usually given the name Baalat. Inscriptions from two locations in southern Palestine seem to indicate that she was also worshiped as the consort of Yahweh.”

I made nothing up. This happens to be in my field of study. Sorry it doesn’t fit with your lack of knowledge.

Ha Ha Ha you don’t have any knowledge only the hand-me-down lies of other bogus anti-Bible secular agenda historians and philosophers which, unfortunately, your brain is now saturated with.

Asherah or Astarte or Ishtar or Eostre or the Scriptural Ashtoreth was a Babylonian (Canaanite) goddess – period. She’s the one who laid an giant egg in the Euphrates River. LOL LOL LOL From this came the pagan Roman Cult practice of Easter and Easter Eggs. Other cultures incorporated it into their own fertility sun worship practices.

Nonetheless, it is still referring to Asherah. I am sorry there is a history to your religion that you don’t like. But it’s there. You either incorporate it into your belief system, or you flip around like a fish out of water. And I have no desire to sit here and watch as you flip and flop. Good day.

I have no religion, it’s philosophers that have, and like, religion, hence we end up with people called theologians, Doctors of Divinity (whatever they are LOL) or assorted Bible intellectuals who have no Spiritual understanding being Spiritually dead.

Worse still we have people like yourself who have not even studied the Holy Scriptures and source their material from know-nothing secular intellectuals.

Yashua Messiah did not come to this earth to start a religion. Hu-man creatures – the sons of Cain, are the authors of religion – all religions, including the Cainite-Judeo-Christian Religion.

“The oldest known portrait of Jesus, found in Syria and dated to about 235, shows him as a beardless young man of authoritative and dignified bearing. He is depicted dressed in the style of a young philosopher, with close-cropped hair and wearing a tunic and pallium – signs of good breeding in Greco-Roman society.“

Imagine that… Quite the opposite of the anti-intellectualism of modern-day fundamentalist so-called ‘Christians’. Once the Romans got ahold of the archetype of Jesus, they shaved him and turned him into an archetype of ROYALTY.

In your ignorance you also have the irritating habit of making erroneous assumptions – I am not a fundamentalist Christian. I am a follower of The Way – Yashua Messiah.

I know all about the Cainite-Judeo-Christian Religious images of their pansy effeminate jesus with long hair and a pathetic goatee beard i.e. images of Michael Angelo, not Yashua Messiah.

There are no portraits of Yashua Messiah, so your Syrian image will be just another false claim.

Royalty does not have to be beardless e.g. King Edward VII – King George V – Czar Nicholas etc.

Furthermore, Yashua Messiah had nowhere to lay His head i.e. He was travelling most of the time amongst His people as far East as the lands of The Medes and Parthians and West as far as The British Isles where He spent a considerable amount of time until 27 AD when He returned to Samaria and Judea. This means He most likely had a full beard especially whilst at sea with His uncle Joseph of Aremathea – the wealthy tin merchant.

I am not going to debate belief-based theology with you. I would suggest you get your history down, though. Because you really can’t see outside the box that myth has created for you. You need to listen to this:

I never listen to or watch jewtube noise unless it is recommended by a reliable source and you would never, in my book, be classified as that. Watching that BS stuff would seem to be one of your major problems.

Only The Truth can set a man free and Yashua Messiah is The Truth, so only belief and faith in Him can enable a man to be truly free and outside the box.

“Come out of her my people and be not partaker of her sins and her plagues.”

In your philosophical delusion you THINK you are free, but all the while you’re more enslaved than an uneducated illiterate road sweeper, who I would hold with higher regard.

I figured I would run into your willful ignorance sooner or later. The fact is, you’re stuck inside the mythology system. We have history of these peoples, and can trace the linage of thinking as the cultures intermixed. Christianity is a concoction. It’s priestcraft.

As to your willful ignorance, though:

“Some who think themselves naturally gifted, do not wish to touch either philosophy or logic; nay more, they do not wish to learn natural science. They demand bare faith alone. . . So also I call him truly learned who brings everything to bear on the truth–so that, from geometry, and music, and grammar, and philosophy itself, culling what is useful, he guards the faith against assault. How necessary is it for him who desires to be partaker of the power of God, to treat of intellectual subjects by philosophising.” (Clement of Alexandria, early Church Father)

You can’t reject philosophy or logic the way you ignorant faux Christians like to do — not while still calling yourself a Christian.

You’re a laughing stock, but cannot see it – The Delusion is strong with you.

All the ‘church fathers’ were counterfeiters, I know, I have checked them all out. Like you, they were spiritually dead philosphising know-nothings to man. There were the founders of The Cainite-Judeo-Christian Religion otherwise known as The Roman Cult and its Eastern Orthodox sister – All is vanity – all is meaningless.

No man needs logic or reasoning when gifted with The Holy Spirit.

1 Cor 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

The Gospel is foolishness to philosophers, (Greeks) because they cannot grasp it nor can they comprehend it – like you. You’re completely out of your depth here sonny jim.

1 Cor 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Meditate on that.

1 Cor 1:26-28 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

Now run along, for there must be many a gullible push-over ready to be impressed by you but I, for one, am not.

THE WHOLE THING is produced through syncretism. Sorry that you can’t see that. If you would actually open your mind up to learning more about the very OBVIOUS myth-making process, you’d see it. But your cult also has built-in defense mechanisms against learning such things, I agree. Most cults do. Facts are, nonetheless, very stubborn things.

Acharia S is a new age witch, and a devotee of Helena Blavatsky. Why would anyone consider her a authority on Christianity? Gnostics and Theosophists hate Christianity and have lead many astray with their perversion of it in new age doctrines and cults.

That’s just ad hominem. This is not a contest of personalities. It’s about arguments and the validity thereof. ‘Gnosticism’ is a word that we use today — they did not call themselves that. It’s Platonism — and you don’t need a degree in philosophy to see that.

I have told you that you do not have any arguments. All you have is secular philosophical intellectualism devoid of any spirituallity. Everything you say is meaningless and worthless – total vanity, how simply do want me to put it?

I agree with you regarding what the Jews believe regarding usury in the Bible, but I don’ t believe the Old testament message is the same. I think the idea Deut. is trying to convey is that usury is a weapon, and like a spear or catapult, can only be used in defense against those that are trying to conquer or destroy you. It is not a legitimate form of doing business and is a mortal sin.

I don’t know ‘Entdecktes Judenthum’ to be honest pm, but I’ll have a look.

I was shocked to hear Hoffman was so dismissive of the Protocols. I’m not really sure Henry’s theory about them is correct (a lot of questions remain), but for me they have always worked because they ring so true. So matter of fact. So comprehensive. So profound.

Personally, I consider the 21st protocol (about the financial program) the best text on money ever written. I can’t think of anybody who could have written something like that today,

It is true that educated people 150 years ago knew more than we do today, but still, even if this was just satire by someone who understood how they work and think, it’s still by far the best appraisal of the Jewish Question and what we face today I’ve come across.

You guys should note that many in the Islamic World have deemed Usury (Ribaa) – The chief weapon of Dajaal (The Anti-Christ). In addition – am waiting for you guys to come to the conclusion that the verse that seems to condone usury “to those not of thy bretheren” – is a satanically inspired perversion by the ‘false pen of the scribes.’

That’s an interesting point, about Usury being the chief weapon of the Dajaal Noriba, I certainly agree. It is Usury that enslaves us, for which we get up in the morning as wageslaves, that takes half of our life force and simultaneously limits our potential for expressing the other half. It is Usury that finances all the other depravities the dark side springs on us. That buys all the inventions, politicians, companies, scientists, priests and what have you.

I’m not really interested in the idea that the Bible ‘is the word of God’. It was written by men and it is flawed. Bad translations, wrong books included and wrong books left out.

John’s Gospel is probably my favorite book in the world, but I’ve come to my own conclusions concerning the Bible and God and I have benefited immensely from other texts too, the Tao in particular. Tao 1 and John 1:1-4 are to me one and the same.

Jesus incarnated the Word, God’s Spirit, the Son, the Christ. It’s not about Jesus, it’s about the Spirit that became flesh in him and that spoke through him and acted through him, because Jesus was a selfless prophet who loved God above all and undoubtedly was God’s favored child. Ok, I appreciate you probably liking Muhammed more, but that’s how it is :-)

Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

Antony, You are correct concerning Christianity and the Old Testament. The definition of Gospel is God Speak. Based on my research and experience doing what Jesus told us to do, there is no reason to go any where else for the truth including anything past the last Gospel, John.

You have written a good article in a concise enough manner to be read, but I would disagree with some of the dates concerning the USA’s dance with the devil in the early years from 1782 to 1816.

BTW, the first name for New York City was New Amsterdam and that was no coincidence. Founded by usurers, for usurers, and it’s still one of their favorite hang-outs.

“Jew” and “Judah” are not synonyms but homonyms. The first person in the bible to be called a “Jew” was Judith ie Yehudith, (H3066) a Jewess, a Canaanite wife of Esau. She lived before Judah was born. And chronologically, it is unlikely this name or title was first used for her but probably went way back in Canaanite/Kenite culture. In the OT these two names are never intermingled. They are not the same people.
In the New testament, Jew meant “a Judean resident” ie a resident of the former territory of the Tribe of Judah, the real estate still bearing that name. According to Josephus and Strabo the majority of Judeans were ethnic Edomites (Idumeans). The word Jew could also apply to anyone who embraced the religion of prevalence in the land, which was the hopelessly corrupted old covenant religion of Moses which had 700 years earlier been rejected by the children of Israel who had been gone from the Levant since.

This course utilizes Murray Rothbard’s “power elite analysis” to expose the intersection of banking and politics in US History.

Selections from the following books by Rothbard will be assigned:
◾Origins of the Federal Reserve
◾Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy
◾History of Money and Banking in the United States

The quotations below will give an idea of what to expect:

Robert Morris’s nationalist vision was not confined to a strong central government, the power of the federal government to tax, and a massive pubic debt fastened permanently upon the taxpayers. Shortly after he assumed total economic power in Congress in the spring of 1781, Morris introduced a bill to create … the first central bank … the Bank of North America … modeled after the Bank of England.

—Murray Rothbard, A History of Money and Banking in the United States

The Bank of the United States promptly fulfilled its inflationary potential. … The result of the outpouring of credit and paper money by the new Bank of the United States was … an increase [in prices] of 72 percent [from 1791 to 1796].

—Murray Rothbard, A History of Money and Banking in the United States

[The Bank of the United States] ran into grave difficulties through mismanagement, speculation, and fraud.

—James J. Kilpatrick, The Sovereign States

[Henry Clay’s] income from this business [general counsel to the Bank of the United States] apparently amounted to what he needed: three thousand dollars a year from the bank as chief counsel; more for appearing in specific cases; and a sizable amount of real estate in Ohio and Kentucky in addition to the cash. … When he resigned to become Secretary of State in 1825, he was pleased with his compensation.

—Maurice Baxter, Henry Clay and the American System

I believe my retainer has not been renewed or refreshed as usual. If it be wished that my relation to the Bank [of the United States] should be continued, it may be well to send me the usual retainer.

—Letter from Daniel Webster to Nicholas Biddle, president of the Bank of the United States

The Bank of the United States “is a monster, a hydra-headed monster equipped with horns, hoofs, and tail so dangerous that it impaired the morals of our people, corrupted our statesmen, and threatened our liberty. It bought up members of Congress by the Dozen … subverted the electoral process, and sought to destroy our republican institutions.

—President Andrew Jackson

Congress gave [Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson … $700 billion, and the first thing he did was to take $125 billion out of the bag and give it to his pals at the nine biggest banks and investment banks in the country. Never one to display ingratitude, he gave $10 billion to Goldman Sachs, the firm he had headed before passing through the revolving door to the Treasury.

THAT ALONE is the immoral illegal unjust thievery of the scam. Were the paper money actually fully redeemable then the problem would be solved Jackson style, whereby after the markets releveled he paid off the Nat’l debt the first and last times in our history and rebated excess revenues back to the states.

And it’s total BS that there isn’t enough precious metals for a fair and just system as we had before. The ounces just buy more or less as markets demand.

And YES humanity should reacquire all their stolen gold & silver from shylock and REPUDIATE the illegal ergo unenforceable debts.

Nobody owes you more than that principle you have loaned them — That’s all you worked for that’s all your owed. Interest suggests that you should be paid for something you did not lend and did not work for or produce. That is also called theft.

Unforseeable and unknowable futures are an intrinsic part of a usurous system. Once usury is gone universal prosperity will follow by default. You need to do your research of financial history and in particular the period in American history under Colonial Scrip.

Only whilst the people remain surety for the National Bankruptcy which expired in 1999 in the USA and 2009 in Britain but has not been honoured by the bankster criminals. This is why we’re headed for financial melt down.

government defined for Americans is NOT a Global Jewish Crime Syndicate

100% of so-called “Jews” are not Israelites…nor honorable.

“raising the debt limit” is encouraging the braindeadgoy to ..”find
the bottom of the bottomless pit”….sacrificing their great great grandchildren
to the deity of the stool sculpture deity cult compound…Mammon/”Jews” god

there are no “Jews” in the Old Testament.

No One on Earth Has to stay in the stool sculpture deity cult compound
knowing the truth is the exit strategy…”Jesus”.

I cannot remember, it’s so long ago that I ruled him out as yet another ex-WCG man of error. He’s was not alone. I know, I am also ex-WCG and the crucial element with Armstrong and WCG was always half-truths and they have to be repented of.

Further to, I have just paid a visit to the Willie Martin page and the first line of the first article said this:

“Christian Identity is a racist and anti-Semitic cult. They refer to mainstream Christianity as a “Jew religion” and substitute their own occult beliefs.”

1st error: Christian Identity is not racist and if it were why is that a problem?

2nd error: Christian Identity is not anti-semitic, nor indeed can it be.

3rd error: They refer to mainstream Christianity as a “Jew religion” – which is correct, The Cainite-Judeo-Christian Religion.

4th error: And substitute their own occult beliefs – no proof that Christian Identity has occult beliefs which they couldn’t prove anyway.

I am not a part of the Christian Identity movement but I do know that they are on the right track. However, the point I am making is how erroneous the Willie Martin page is – 4 errors alone from an opening sentence.

Hi marxbites…I am afraid you have been indoctrinated to fetishize money…and believe it is fertile. IN no way, shape or form is usury a return on investment,,,unless you torture the word investment. investment is a specific form of transaction – usury is another altogether. Your dilemma has to do with not being clear on understanding what the properties of sound money are, versus the perversion which accompanies ‘usurized’ money (pre-existing money, or newly created money… that is loaned through a usury transaction). All this nonsense about covering risk, time value…etc are easily exposed as post-hoc justifications for contaminating a sound monetary system for secondary gain; any mind with a sound engineering background can see the devastation that accompanies institutionalized usury (modern banking). Those who cling to trying to rationalize usury (interest) suffer from a mind which is either insecure (made insecure through the inherent scarcity of money – a situation caused by usury itself) or by a mind that is overcome by avarice and sloth, or just plain indoctrinated by the absurd pseudoscience known as economics – and such axioms like accepting the premise of usury are like the ancients who tried to solve astronomical problems using the premise that the earth is flat and orbits of other bodies are circles (instead of ellipses). One of the fundamental principles of sound money is that acquiring it should come about in only 2 ways; one is by gift or charity. The other is by earning; earning is of 2 types…You either introduce value into society – through which you earn money, OR you invest in an enterprise which if it is successful, injects value into a society, earns a profit, and you take your cut (holding equity, dividends, profit sharing) – if it loses…than as a partner, you also lose. If you agree that those are the only ways to acquire money, if it be a sound money system – than acquiring it through usury is in violation of this. Credit – is obviously necessary and can be obtained through a rich person’s money(venture capitalist – via a partnership where liquidity is the capitalists input), or a well regulated credit agency which has societal agreed upon criteria for providing credit to entrepreneurs in need of capital expenditures; You just are not capable of envisioning such a set up. It has existed in places and times throughout history…although quickly succumbed to the usurers tentacles. Bottom line – existentially, money should serve commerce (trading of actual wealth for production/consumption) commerce should NOT serve money. Usury makes the latter happen, and most folks are comfortable with that notion. That’s the extent which the perversion has afflicted our minds.

Money is ANYTHING people agree to use as intermediary commodities of exchange – PERIOD. PMs met the requirements better than all others becoming universal over time.

I will gladly pay a fee to get something today I would otherwise have to first save for.

What would be immoral is IF the “money” I borrow over time for a fee is FIAT issued as debt & irredeemable for nothing. IE cost the lender NOTHING.

THAT ALONE is the immoral aspect, the creation of debt fiat from thin air vs labor, the added insult to injury is the interest.

HONEST money IS THE ISSUE, money that does NOT debase any money already in existence when issued, eg PMs or 100% paper substitutes for PMs.

And oh YES there are enough PMs in the world to re-establish a global universal PMs monetary system yet again.

Any global corrective for warmongering banksters involves repudiating their illegal debts but also reconfiscating the vast wealth they’ve spent centuries relieving mankind of by the force of the criminal state they coopted and fully control.

How can people agree to something they do not even understand. Ask people the question: What is money and how is it created? and they won’t have a clue. So what you are suggesting is the people’s agreement (a trust) to something that does not have full disclosure or is a fraudulent contract at best.

There’s nothing wrong with fiat currency as long as the people are controlling its issuance and there is no interest on it. Once money is purely a tool and interest has gone then hoarding it becomes a pointless exercise.

Banksters (Bolshevik Marxist Jews) make money complicated so that they can commit their fraud without being found out. That’s all there is to it. All banking is fraud.

You don’t believe that interactions between individual actors can cause systemic harm to others? You don’t believe externalities exist? Individualism is contrary to humanity and all actions carry a moral weight. Mises (Jew) and libertardianism is just more Jewish cover for the Jewish usury scam. Individualism and libertarianism are irreconcilable with the European nature.

To suggest that “Whites are expected to be a minority all over the West in 2050/2060 and irrelevant by the end of the century” is a) nothing to do with Jews or usury, because b) its not surprising because we are interbreeding: most people in the world will be a mixture, or tending towards a mixture by then !

Who do think is behind all the interbreeding?
Which political dogma is internationlist in its thinking and its intent and hates strong vibrant nation states?
Which race controls ALL the media and bombards you with propaganda which you obviously soak up like a sponge?
Which countries have been, and are being, invaded by blacks?
Who were the the most active slave traders in the 18th century only you were never told having been conditioned in a Bolshevik Marxist Jew conditioning centre thinking it was a school?
Which race hates white people the most?
Which race controls the world’s finance giving them the capability to bring about their satanic white genocide plans?

But as one working in that tradition, I am obligated to not engage in obfuscation, and so I present the uncensored facts as I have come to understand them, so as to work towards nullifying the harsh political realities that most prefer to ignore:

The Rothschild family has ruled the world for a very long time. Of course, the Rothschilds didn’t just come out of nowhere. Their activities would have not been possible in a World in which there was not a long history of financial domination. Some have traced this history of what I’ll call mercantile parasitism to old Venetian financial networks (incidentally, the Warburg banking family, influential in our time, descended from the Venetian del Banco family). Some, like R. Buckminister Fuller, have traced this system back to ancient Phoenecian predecessors to these merchant bankers. It has probably been around for as long as “civilization”, as we presently call it, has existed. This empire of mercantile parasitism spread from Venice and elsewhere outward through Europe, and further refined banking practices in Amsterdam. Things really took off with the “Glorious” revolution, financed by Amsterdam bankers like Manasseh ben Israel

That author was not me, I posted it for FYI, b/c rascism doesn’t seem to help the anti-shylock cause

I am against their cost free money from thin air that becomes the peoples debt with interest.

Its the dishonest fract’l reserve money that’s the root of the deceit. EG like a warehouse receipt you hold where the warehouseman has sold off your belongings. Same as fractional reserve where the FRN is redeemable for no actual asset other than other debasing clones of itself.

Bet you closed minds NEVER read a lick of Phd Ed Viera or Larry Parks at fame.org have yooz?

BOTH btw have utoob viddys

For the paying of interest on loaned HONEST money CAN be paid off with honest money.

I didn’t say fractional reserve, I said FIAT i.e. money printed and put into circulation by the people for the people – no interest, no gold, no silver.

This would involve all people being restored all their wealth and property that they have had stolen from them under the present Jew system. This, in turn, would mean that no one would need to borrow any money because all would be properous.

Your head is still stuck in the Jew system with your ‘honest money’ nonsense. An ‘honest money’ system suggests to me that dishonest money is still in circulation.

“Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity. The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. We intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed, not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”
Noel Ignatiev, Harvard Magazine, Sep-Oct 2002

“The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendent quality.”
Ben Wattenberg, Jewish writer and journalist

Here is Coudenhove Kalergi, who is considered the arch daddy of the EU with his Pan European movement:
“The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews [due to the actions taken by the French Revolution] “

@Natasha Actually, one of the two main co-sponsors of the 1965 immigration reform bill was the Jewish senator, Emanuel Celler. The ADL has said that diversity (code word for non-White) is America’s greatest strength, and if you criticize mass non-White immigration, you are labeled a racist by Jewish-owned and/or controlled mass media. Also, white isn’t just skin colour. Most Whites can tolerate lactose, whereas most non-Whites can’t. Also there are big genetic differences concerning positivity on HIV tests and lead uptake from fluoridated water, and Asians require far lower stain drug doses.